Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Peltz, 391 P.3d 1215.

28 citing documents.

State v. L & L Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. L & L Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶36 Though a lay witness may offer an opinion on the ultimate issue if it is a reasonable inference based on her firsthand knowledge and perceptions, ¶ 17 (App. 2017) (citation omitted), the Inspector General based her conclusion on reviewing documents and then employing her significant expertise in interpreting those documents.
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Likewise, ¶¶ 5-6, 9-10 (App. 2017), we concluded—albeit in a different posture than this case—that there was “substantial evidence” of a serious physical injury where the victim had sustained a laceration to her spleen, a spinal fracture, and an orbital fracture with bruising.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“A ’search’ under the Fourth Amendment occurs when an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is infringed.” ¶ 25 (App. 2017).
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 18 (App. 2017) (approving lay witness opinion based on “training and experience” as well as “logic”).
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
3 ¶ 8 (App. 2017) (“The prosecutor has broad discretion in deciding .
State v. Mixton 447 P.3d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Mixton 447 P.3d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
When a lay witness is “drawing a reasonable inference from [his] firsthand knowledge and perceptions of a situation, the witness is competent to voice [his] opinion.” ¶ 17 (App. 2017) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
See, e.g. , State v. Ault , , 463, , 549 (1986) ; State v. Bolt , , 264-65, , 523-24 (1984) ; see also State v. Peltz , , 30 ¶ 24 n.3, , 1222 n.3 (App. 2017) ("[T]he right of privacy under article II, § 8 has not been expanded beyond that provided by the Fourth Amendment, except in cases involving unlawful, warrantless home entries.").
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Benderra v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Benderra v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
But the prosecutor has broad discretion in deciding whether to charge a defendant, ¶ 8 (App. 2017) (), and “[t]he mere fact that charges were dismissed, of course, does not itself prove the alleged crimes did not occur, just as an acquittal does not establish a defendant’s innocence,” Mohajerin, 226 Ariz. at 110 n.6, ¶ 23 (citing United States v
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
701; ¶ 17 (App. 2017) (“[W]hen a lay witness is drawing a reasonable inference from [the witness’s] own firsthand knowledge and perceptions of a situation, the witness is competent to voice [the witness’s] opinion .
State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
But other than in the context of a war-rantless entry into the home itself, Arizona's courts have concluded that the protections of art, II, § 8 are coextensive with those of our federal constitutional jurisprudence, n.3 , , 1222 n.3(App. 2017).