Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez, 308 P.3d 1189.

36 citing documents.

State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
P. 31.10(a)(7)(A) (opening briefs must include “appellant’s contentions with supporting reasons for each contention” and “citations of legal authorities.”); ¶ 22 (2020); ¶ 10 (App. 2013).
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
¶ 6 (App. 2014) (applying fundamental-error review “[b]ecause the court never ruled on Defendant’s motion in limine and Defendant did not object at trial” (–44, ¶ 21 (App. 2013))).
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
¶¶ 16-18 (App. 2013), this court addressed whether polygraph evidence remained per se inadmissible at trial as provided by these authorities after our supreme court amended Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid., effective January 1, 2012, and adopted the Daubert standard3 for determining the admissibility of expert testimony.
Roger S. v. James S. 495 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Roger S. v. James S. 495 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 10 (App. 2013) (explaining an argument on appeal must be supported by authority and citations to the record).
State v. Copple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Copple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶12 Second, even if Copple had not waived and failed to develop his argument, “the trial court has broad discretion to determine the reliability of evidence and need not conduct a hearing to make a Daubert decision.” ¶ 11 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2013)).
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Berliew was convicted of multiplicitous charges, but we do not vacate the conviction and sentence, ¶ 13 (2000) (stating this Court may correct the error of convicting a defendant to multiplicitous charges by vacating the conviction and sentence for the lesser-included crime), because Berliew does not show she was prejudiced by the error, ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (providing that failure to argue fundamental error on appeal waives argument).
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19 (App. 2013); ¶ 28 (App. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds, ¶ 36 (2015).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“When the facts of the case raise questions of credibility or accuracy that might not be explained by experiences common to jurors—like the reactions of child victims of sexual abuse—expert testimony on the general behavioral characteristics of 3 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); (Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid., reflects Arizona’s adoption of Daubert standard).
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
has “considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable”); ¶ 28, (“Although a court has the discretion to hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing to address admissibility under Arizona Rule of Evidence 702, such a hearing is not mandatory.”); ¶ 19, (holding “trial court has broad discretion to determine the reliability of evidence and need not conduct a hearing to make a Daubert decision”).
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Favela 323 P.3d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Favela 323 P.3d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 19, (citing Ariz. State Hosp., 231 Ariz. at 474, ¶ 31, 296 P.3d at 1010); see also Sandretto, No. 2 CA-CV 2013- 0044, 2014 WL 949104, at *4, ¶ 17 (“[A] trial court has great discretion whether to set a pretrial hearing to evaluate proposed expert testimony.”).
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶6 Because the court never ruled on Defendant’s motion in limine and Defendant did not object at trial, Defendant has “not properly preserved these issues for appeal absent fundamental, prejudicial error.” -44, ¶ 21, -95 (App. 2013).
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
702); , (affirming exclusion of polygraph test results under Ariz. R. Evid.