Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Alvarez, 143 P.3d 668.

37 citing documents.

State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
o confrontation may, of course, be waived, including by failure to object to the offending evidence; and States may adopt procedural rules governing the exercise of such objections.”); ¶ 55 (2008) (Although courts review de novo Confrontation Clause challenges, the failure to object at trial means the defendant “must show fundamental error.”); ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (“A ‘hearsay’ objection does not preserve for appellate review a claim that admission of the evidence violated the Confrontation Clause.”)
State v. Gayles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gayles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶¶ 17, 18 (App. 2006) (categorizing statement as non-testimonial because its main function was to get help, not “to implicate an accused at a later judicial proceeding”); ¶ 10 (App. 2010) (explaining statements to police are non-testimonial when the primary purpose i
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 23 (App. 2007); ¶ 23 (App. 2005), vacated in part on other grounds, Earl v. Garcia ex rel.
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Romney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Romney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7, (noting that a hearsay objection does not preserve a Confrontation Clause objection for appellate review).
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 20, (“Finding no error in the court’s evidentiary ruling, we need not address whether any alleged error was fundamental and 6 STATE v. BLACK Decision of the Court prejudicial.”); S
State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 20, (“Finding no error in the court’s evidentiary ruling, we need not address whether any alleged error was fundamental and prejudicial.”); ¶ 23, (defendant “must first prove error” under fundamental error review).
State v. Hill 336 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hill 336 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Earl v. Hon. garcia/state 324 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Earl v. Hon. garcia/state 324 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 23 , , vacated in part on other grounds
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“If reasonable minds can differ on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, a trial court has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal and must submit the case to the jury.” State v. Alvarez, 210 Ariz. 24, ¶ 10, vacated in part on other grounds, 213 Ariz. 467
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“The question of whether a statement is testimonial ‘is a factually driven inquiry and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.’ ” ¶ 14 , ( ¶ 43 , ).
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
117 , (“A ‘hearsay’ objection does not preserve for appellate review a claim that admission of the evidence violated the Confrontation Clause.”).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
¶ 19, (finding an “ongoing emergency” when facts indicate that “[a]lthough the criminal activity .
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See State v. Alvarez, 210 Ariz. 24, ¶ 23, vacated in part on other grounds by P.3d 668 (App. 2006).