Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham, 289 P.3d 949.

32 citing documents.

State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. at 63, ¶ 27 (applying harmless-error review to the refusal of a requested jury instruction); ¶ 17 (App. 2012) (); ¶ 44 (App. 2014).
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thus, Strickland stands for the proposition “that suggestive identification procedures occurring as part of formal court proceedings, like those arranged by police, may trigger the procedural protections set forth in Dessureault.” ¶ 8 (App. 2012), ¶ 25 (2021).
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
court agreed with the trial court that Bigger had not proven his IAC claims because he “had not offered an affidavit from an expert witness to support his claims or otherwise shown that counsel’s decisions, even if ultimately unsuccessful, were the result of a lack of experience or preparation.” Third, the court held that Perry was not a significant change in the law; rather, —a case interpreting Perry that required a specific, cautionary jury instruction on the reliability of an eyewitness iden
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We review de novo “the question of whether a common-law procedural rule with constitutional underpinnings, such as that set forth in Dessureault, applies to a particular factual scenario.” ¶ 4 (App. 2012) (quotation omitted) ().
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Smith , 123 Ariz. at 252 , 599 P.2d at 208 ; Delgado , 174 Ariz. at 257 , 848 P.2d at 342 ; cf. State v. Machado , , ¶¶ 12-13, , 1166-67 (App. 2010), aff'd , , ¶ 26, , 637 (2011), and abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized by State v. Nottingham , , n.4, , 954 n.4 (App. 2012).
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 40 (App. 2010), n.4 ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
State v. Stelmasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelmasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 40, 230 7 STATE v. STELMASEK Decision of the Court P.3d 1158, 1173 (App. 2010), n.4, ¶ 13, n.4 (App. 2012)).
State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson Causbie 384 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson Causbie 384 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
A statute can give 7Causbie also contends we should view the evidence in the light most favorable to him as the party requesting jury instructions, -24 (App. 2015)
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-27, ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2012).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
¶ 16, (noting that when requested a trial court must separately and specifically instruct the jury on eyewitness identification when it is at issue in the case).
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
13 n.4, n.4 (App. 2012).
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶14 In accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when police conduct pretrial identification procedures, they are required to do so “in a manner that is fundamentally fair and secures the suspect’s right to a fair trial.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts.”
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“In Dessureault, our supreme court established a process for challenging pretrial identification procedures that are ‘significantly suggestive and as such materially increase[] the dangers inherent in eye witness identification.’” quoting Dessureault, 104 Ariz. at 383, 453 P.2d at 954 (alteration in Nottingham).