Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kinney, 241 P.3d 914.

39 citing documents.

State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶12 “To preserve an argument for review, the defendant must make a sufficient argument to allow a trial court to rule on the issue.” ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
And an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue [for appeal] on another ground.” ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State v. Givens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Givens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(citing cases); ¶ 7 n.2 (App. 2010).
Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“To preserve an argument for review, [a party] must make a sufficient argument to allow a trial court to rule on the issue.”).
State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Second, even if we were to find that issues related to the court’s suppression findings were waived, “[w]e have discretion to address a significant, albeit waived, issue.” ¶ 7, n.2 (App. 2010); ¶ 47, n.8 (App. 2009) (“If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.”) (
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The evidence, therefore, was sufficient to prove Romero’s prior convictions “[i]n the absence of any evidence casting doubt on the identification.” ¶ 26 (App. 2010).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 15 (App. 2010) (upholding investigatory detention based on totality of circumstances where defendant “somewhat matched” suspect’s physical description).
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Turner 416 P.3d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Turner 416 P.3d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Kinney , , ¶¶ 15-16, , 920 (App. 2010).
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bateman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bateman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 18 (App. 2010) (absent other reasons, "police officers may only detain a person long enough to determine whether there is an outstanding warrant for the person's arrest").
Sussex v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sussex v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See In re MH 2008-002659, ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (“We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal except under exceptional circumstances.”); ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (preserving an argument for appellate review requires a party to make a sufficient argument to allow the trial court to rule on the issue).
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“[W]aiver is a procedural concept that courts do not rigidly employ in mechanical fashion,” and we may employ our discretion when determining whether “to address a significant, albeit waived, issue,” n.2, n.2 (App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 16, (“[A]rguments not made at the trial court cannot be asserted on appeal.”); ¶ 7, (“To preserve an argument for review, the defendant must make a sufficient argument to allow a trial court to rule on the issue.”).
Azore, LLC v. Bassett 341 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Azore, LLC v. Bassett 341 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
554 ¶ 7 n. 2, , 918 n. 2 (App.2010) (providing that although appellate courts generally will not address issues not raised before the trial court, we may address waived issues to uphold a trial court’s ruling); , 569 n. 8, , 1145 n. 8 (App.2009) (“If applicati
Michael T. v. Dcs, N.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Michael T. v. Dcs, N.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 16, (“[A]rguments not made at the trial court cannot be asserted on appeal.”); ¶ 7, (“To preserve an argument for review, the defendant must make a sufficient argument to allow a trial court to rule on the issue.”).
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 288 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 288 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
n.2, n.2 (App. 2010) (although appellate courts generally will not address issue not raised below, we may address waived issue when attempting to uphold trial court’s ruling).