Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martinez, 212 P.3d 75.

32 citing documents.

State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 33 (App. 2009) (“Fourth Amendment rights are implicated only if [a private party] act[s] on behalf of the state without ‘a legitimate independent motivation for conducting the search.’” (quoting Walther, 652 F.2d at 792)).
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 (1984), Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 n. 20 (1979) the superior court found Hernandez “ha[d] not established a Fourth Amendment violation because the jail hid recording devices in the 6 STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court jail vents and water wells, and ob
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Prerequisite to such a dismissal, the prosecution must engage in misconduct—“conduct that ‘is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or significant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.’” ¶ 36 (App. 2009) (-09 (1984)).
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Prosecutorial misconduct is defined as “intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” ¶ 36 (App. 2009) (–09 (1984)).
State v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
"Whether a private person acted as a state agent is a 'fact-intensive inquiry that is guided by common law agency principles.'" -73, ¶ 8 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2009)).
State v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. 6 ¶ 36 (App. 2009) (-09 (1984)).
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶12 Prosecutorial misconduct is “intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial” and that “is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety.” (-09 (1984)).
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Prosecutorial misconduct is not “merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake or insignificant impropriety.” ¶ 36 (App. 2009) ().
State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
–92 ¶ 31, –84 6 STATE V. GILL Opinion of the Court (App. 2009).
State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples 378 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples 378 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2016
See, ¶ 21 n.7, n.7 (App. 2009); ¶ 16
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 36, (citation omitted).
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 36, (citation omitted).
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Prosecutorial misconduct is “conduct that is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” ¶ 36, (-09, -72 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. GARCIA-NAVARRO 226 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. GARCIA-NAVARRO 226 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by