Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Estrada, 100 P.3d 452.

74 citing documents.

State v. Najim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Najim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 22 (App. 2004) (“Because the trial court was in the best position to 4 STATE v. NAJIM Decision of the Court observe the demeanor of the witnesses and determine their possible biases, we must defer to its assessme
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶10 “[A] wrongful search or seizure performed by a private citizen does not violate the Fourth Amendment unless the citizen is acting as an agent of the state.” ¶ 16 (App. 2004).
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Kaden V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re Kaden V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A superior court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence will not be set aside absent a clear abuse of discretion, ¶ 12 (1999), and is viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s ruling, ¶ 2 (App. 2004).
State v. Kornack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kornack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 25 (2016); ¶ 11 (App. 2004).
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See, e.g. , State v. Estrada , , ¶ 2
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 22 (App. 2004) ("Because the trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and determine their possible biases, we must defer to its assessment of their credibility.").
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Accordingly, we will defer to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility because the trial court is in the best position to make that determination.” ¶ 10 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 22 (App. 2004)).
State v. Kearns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kearns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s ruling, deferring to the court’s factual determinations, including its evaluation of the credibility of witness testimony, ¶ 22 (App. 2004); ¶ 7 (App. 2003) (“In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to the trial court’s factual determinations, but the ultimate ruling is a conclusion of law we review de novo.”).
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(medical blood draw exception does not apply “when a person is receiving medical treatment against his or her will”).
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
Before this case, our court of 5 P.3d 452 (App. 2004), P.3d 823 (App. 2014).
State v. Eagleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Eagleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 28-1388(E); ¶ 13 (App. 2004).
State v. Manzanares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Manzanares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Malin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Malin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wayment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wayment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶6 Because the fact finder, the jury, is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses after direct and cross-examination, ¶ 22, we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
this precise question was answered.
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bustos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bustos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We will defer to the trial court’s assessment of the phlebotomist’s credibility, however, because it is “in the best position to make that determination.” ¶ 22, see also Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC, ¶ 19, (providing that this Court defers to the trial court’s factual findings absent a clear abuse of discretion).
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 2, (“[T]he trial court, not this court, determines the credibility of the witnesses.”) ( ¶ 7, ).