Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dessureault, 453 P.2d 951.

382 citing documents.

State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
He claimed counsel failed to request a
State v. Ruelas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruelas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(when a defendant fails to challenge a pretrial identification at trial, we will presume “thereafter that prior identification procedures did not taint the in-court identification.
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
actors a jury may consider in determining whether an in- court identification is reliable—could only be given if the defendant proved to the trial court that a potentially faulty identification was due to 9 STATE V. BIGGER Opinion of the Court suggestive police procedures, which Bigger failed to do.
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We review de novo “the question of whether a common-law procedural rule with constitutional underpinnings, such as that set forth in Dessureault, applies to a particular factual scenario.” ¶ 4 (App. 2012) (quotation omitted) ().
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
The witness’s identification must exhibit sufficient 2
State v. Gaxiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gaxiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
3 ¶ 22 (2006); (outlining procedures for the trial court in conducting an evidentiary hearing when a pretrial identification is challenged).
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 4
State v. Lynch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lynch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
¶5 Before trial, Hernandez filed a motion to suppress evidence of Turner's pretrial identification, arguing the identification procedure was unduly suggestive under State v. Dessureault , , and the identification, if admitted, would be more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Marks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
5 STATE v. HARMON Decision of the Court ¶15 Harmon further argues his counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to seek a to challenge the reliability of Victim 2’s identification of Harmon.
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); ¶ 132 (2016) (same); (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std.
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
and subsequently denied Blackwell’s motion, stating: Even if the show up were unduly suggestive, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was otherwise reliable and, thus, admissible.
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(if defendant challenges proposed in-court identification, state must prove the circumstances surrounding any prior identification were not unduly suggestive); ¶ 7 n.1, n.1 (2015) (although Dessureault and other case
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Motion for Mistrial ¶8 Hollingsworth moved to preclude the victim’s P.2d 951 (1969).
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016