Cited by

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

382 citing documents.

State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
C. Refusal to Hold Dessureault Hearing ¶15 Woody argues that the trial court erred by refusing to hold a in regards to in-court identifications by two of the victims.
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P.2d 951 (1969), Black also requested an evidentiary hearing, challenging the anticipated testimony of three eyewitnesses who identified Black as the shooter.
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 352 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 352 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2015
(holding that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing when a pretrial identification is challenged).
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
However, a video 1 (trial court must conduct evidentiary hearing upon challenge to proposed in-court identification).
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DISCUSSION I. Pretrial Identification of Defendant ¶6 Prior to trial, Defendant requested a Dessureault2 hearing, arguing that Neighbor’s pretrial identification of him on the day of the 2 P.2d 951 (1969).
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
Following a P.2d 951 (1969), the trial court concluded that the identification was made in suggestive circumstances, but denied the motion because Gina’s identification was nevertheless reliable.
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
The prosecutor admitted that she “should have disclosed to [Larin’s counsel]” upon learning this information, but, given that “it was a ten-minute disclosure violation,” she “[was] not sure what the remedy would have been.” 3 P.2d 951 (1969).
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶3 Before his second trial, P.2d 951 (1969), the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid., contending “the show-up in the original trial was unduly suggestive.” The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Dessureault’s procedural protections applied only to pretrial identifications and not th
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
The proffered 36 instruction, P.2d 951 (1969), provided that the jury could not consider an in-court identification of the defendant unless the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reliable.
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
(outlining procedures for hearing).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
¶ 22, State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384, (outlining procedures for hearing).
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Police also 1 P.2d 951 (1969).
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
The judge denied the motion after a P.2d 951 (1969), and Swoopes challenged that ruling on appeal.
State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Dominguez 967 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Dominguez 967 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Whether fundamental error occurred when the trial court failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, (1) on the defense of “mere presence” and (2)
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Osorio 931 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Osorio 931 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
Under a pre-rules decision of this court, the state carried the burden “to establish from all the circumstances surrounding the pretrial identification that it was not such as to be unduly suggestive.”
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
The court conducted a Dessureault hearing, , cert.
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Had this case proceeded to trial, plaintiffs trial counsel could have filed a , cert.
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
dmitted by the trial court to prove defendant’s identity as the *486 assailant in this case; (2) the trial court erred in precluding defendant from introducing “reverse 404(b) evidence” that excluded defendant as the assailant in a prior sexual assault similar to the attack on the victim; (3) the evidence of defendant’s , (4) the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to remand to the grand jury for a new determination of probable cause; and (5) the trial court did not err by givi