DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. O'DELL, 46 P.3d 1074.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Faria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Faria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    This Court “review[s] the denial of a motion to suppress under an abuse of discretion standard,” Cornman, 237 Ariz. at 354, ¶ 10, but reviews claims of due process violations de novo, State v. O’Dell, ¶ 8 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See State v. O’Dell, ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (“[T]he state is required to disclose all plainly exculpatory evidence within its possession and violates due process if it fails to do so.”) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Gee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Gee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    We defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, State v. O’Dell, –57, ¶ 8 (App. 2002), and we do not reweigh the evidence, ¶ 29 (App. 2022).
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (“Speculation is not the stuff out of which constitutional error is made.”); see also State v. O’Dell, ¶ 13 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Jarvis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Jarvis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    State v. O’Dell, ¶ 13 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    State v. O’Dell, –57, ¶ 8 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    See Youngblood, 173 Ariz. at 506-07, 844 P.2d at 1156-57; see also State v. O’Dell, (recognizing Willits instruction may be appropriate in particular cases, notwithstanding lack of due process obligation to preserve breathalyzer data).
  • State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
    “The mere possibility that destroyed evidence could have exculpated a defendant is insufficient to establish a due process violation.” State v. O’Dell, ¶ 13, 5 The detectives understood 5 Womble also contends the State violated Rule 15.1(b)(2), which requires the state to disclose all written or recovered statements of the defendant or any person who will be tried with the defendant.
  • State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
    ¶37 The critical distinction for constitutional purposes is “between ‘material exculpatory’ evidence and ‘potentially useful’ evidence.” Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 549 (2004) (per curiam); see also State v. O’Dell, ¶ 13, (stating that the mere possibility that destroyed evidence might be exculpatory does not establish a constitutional violation).
  • State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    State v. O’D ell, -78 (App. 2002); Escobar-Mendez, 195 A riz.
  • State v. Esser 70 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. John Robert Esser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. John Robert Esser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    at 485, 799 P.2d at 826 (“Intoxilyzer test results are considered extremely accurate.”); State v. O’Dell, (noting “the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000”); (“‘Tests performed on the Intoxilyzer 5000 are .
  • State v. Esser 70 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    at 485 , 799 P.2d at 826 (“Intoxilyzer test results are considered extremely accurate.”); State v. O’Dell, , (noting “the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000”); , (“ ‘Tests performed on the Intoxilyzer 5000 are ...