Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Miranda, 450 P.2d 364.
- State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
- State v. Hatton 568 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Hatton 568 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Williams 554 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
-
State v. Williams
554 P.2d 646
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See State v. Miranda, *284 , cert.
- State v. Kelly 543 P.2d 780 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Kelly
543 P.2d 780
Ariz. 1975
This court has stated that a seizure “may be reasonable under circumstances which would not justify an arrest and that constitutional rights do not necessarily depend upon the technicality of when a formal arrest is made.”
- State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Sainz 501 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
- State v. Sainz 501 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
- Severson v. State 188 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1971
- State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Michael
483 P.2d 541
Ariz. 1971
A similar problem was presented this Court in the retrial of Miranda, supra, , , cert.
- State v. Altman 482 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Altman
482 P.2d 460
Ariz. 1971
Although there is broad leeway in cross-examination, , the control of cross-examination is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing from the record of an abuse of that discretion.
- State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Johnson 479 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Johnson 479 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Kelley 454 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1969
-
State v. Kelley
454 P.2d 563
Ariz. 1969
Still, the rule we have adopted in this state is that “the purpose of a preliminary hearing is not to afford the defendant an opportunity for discovery but is limited to the determination that there is probable cause to hold the defendant to answer.” , (Feb.
- State v. Sheffield 451 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Sheffield 451 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969