Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d 171.

57 citing documents.

State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
During the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which is an acceptable indicator of impairment, Bryant showed four out of six cues of impairment.
State v. Sidor 558 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sidor 558 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Terry, 392 U.S. at 20–22; see also State v. Superior Court (Blake), –74 (1986).
State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Superior Court , , 273, , 175 (1986).
State v. Brookter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brookter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See State v. Superior Court (Blake)
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Yet the “‘reasonable,’” Will, 138 Ariz. at 49 , 672 P.2d at 1319 , , “responsible,” , “ ‘prudent,’ ” Spears, 184 Ariz. at 285 , 908 P.2d at 1070 , quoting Carter, 145 Ariz. at 110 , 700 P.2d at 497 , and “ ‘eautio[us],’ ” , quoting United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1970), person employe
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(whether warrantless search supported by reasonable suspicion permissible depends on balance of governmental interest and extent of intrusion).
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-80, -82 (1986) (cannot convict defendant under (A)(2) without analysis of blood, breath, or urine showing alcohol concentration).
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In light of State v. Superior Court (Blake), , we decline to uphold the giving of the presumption instruction on this basis.
State v. Campoy 149 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Campoy 149 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See State v. Superior Court (Blake)
State Ex Rel. Verburg v. Jones 121 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Verburg v. Jones 121 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
"Any examination of a person with a view to discovering evidence of guilt to be used in a prosecution of a criminal action is a search.” State v. Superior Court (Blake)
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(HGN test sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to arrest for DUI); -73 , -71 (App.1990)
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See, e.g., Valdez, 91 Ariz. at 277-79 , 371 P.2d at 896-98 (polygraph evidence); -35 , -01 (1979) (breathalyzer); -66 , -36 (1984) (“voiceprint” evidence); State v. Superior Court (Blake), -80 , -82 (1986) (horizontal gaze nystagmus testing); -42 , -29 (1988) (phosphoglucomutase (PGM) blood grouping); -87 , -28 (1990) (silica gel blood alcohol test)
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 14 Relying on State v. Superior Court (Blake), , Wozniak argues that a chemical analysis of a person’s blood, breath, or urine is required to sustain a conviction under A.R.S.
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
3200 , 105 L.Ed.2d 708 ) (1989); , (horizontal gaze nystagmus testing); -58 , -98 (App. 1982) (remanding for further consideration admissibility of computer accident analysis).
State v. Cannon 963 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cannon 963 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
the law.” The judge also stated: “I don’t think I ruled — as I recollect back on it, I *239 don’t think I ruled inappropriately on evidentiary issues to be submitted to the jury, but the Court did rule inappropriately on the legal factors involved in deciding the prior Rule 20 motions.” ¶ 9 We believe the trial court was referring to the supreme court’s holding in State v. Superior Court (Blake), , which states, “[HGN test results are] not admissible in any criminal case as direct independent ev
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
Bible, 175 Ariz. at 581-82 , 858 P.2d at 1184-85 (finding general acceptance of Cellmark’s procedures for declaring an RFLP DNA *365 match).
State v. Klawitter 518 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1994
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Nevertheless, scientific evidence is “a source of particular judicial caution.”
State v. Cook 834 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Cook 834 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
See generally State v. Superior Court (Blake)
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
Because this is an issue of statewide importance, we granted review to clarify State v. Superior Court (Blake), , as it applies to cases involving a charge under § 28-692(A) only, where no chemical analysis of defendant’s blood, breath, or urine was conducted.
State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Newell v. Town of Oro Valley 789 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990