Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Montano v. Superior Court Pima County, 719 P.2d 271.

77 citing documents.

State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶17 The only Arizona case that found a duty to inform a
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
This arises most frequently in DUI cases because of their “unique evidentiary circumstances.”
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Distinguished State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Based on Kuzmanov’s argument, and relying on Montano v. Superior Court (State), P.2d 271 (1986), the superior court denied the State relief and upheld the justice court’s grant of a directed verdict.
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 24 Our holding takes into account “the unique evidentiary circumstances attendant to [DUI] arrests.” Kunzler, 154 Ariz. at 569 , 744 P.2d at 670 ( , ).
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Followed State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Sanchez, , , quoting *545
State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Bolan 927 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Bolan 927 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Defendant cites Oshrin, , , , and Velasco, , , as cases in which our supreme court explicitly or implicitly rejected Trombetta .
State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona’s Due Process Clause guarantees DUI suspects “a fair chance to obtain independent evidence of sobriety essential to his defense at the only time it [is] available.” , (alteration in original) ( , ).
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Ruffenach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 528 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
The only Arizona case which has ever found a
Moss v. Superior Court 857 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Moss v. Superior Court 857 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
97 (1979); , , State ex rel.
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
in support of his argument.
State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
the trial court suppressed the sample, finding that although “[t]he greater weight of the evidence ...
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
this court, by the slimmest of margins, held that Arizona due process requires the police to inform a DUI suspect of his right to an independent alcohol test even if the police choose not to test the suspect.
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
1 , the supreme court held that the state is obligated to inform a defendant of his right to an independent chemical test.
State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
As for the issue of retroactivity, the supreme court did not specifically address this issue as it has done in other cases such as Hinson v. Coulter, supra
State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990