DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Politte, 664 P.2d 661.

47 citing documents.

  • Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    See, e.g. , Butler , , ¶ 22, (exclusionary rule inapplicable to violations of Parents' Bill of Rights because statute does not provide such remedy, noting law did not "provide that evidence will be suppressed if the statute is violated"); see also State v. Politte , , 125-26, , 669-70 (App. 1982) (evidence not excluded when state wiretap law lacked exclusionary rule provision although federal wiretap law did).
  • State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (addressing issue raised for first time on appeal when it involved “substantial rights of a fundamental nature .
  • State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    Further, we will consider this argument because it raises an issue of public policy and statewide concern, , and because “substantial rights of a fundamental nature are involved which could have resulted in severe prejudice to the appellant.”
  • State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (holding defendant not entitled to instruction on uncharged offense even though he might have been charged and convicted of the offense).
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    Arizona’s statute has been upheld as constitutional, , , , but appellant’s challenge to it has not previously been addressed.
  • State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    *233 , Division 2 of this court held that the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on another offense such as facilitation even though he might have been charged with and convicted of that offense.
  • State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    180 , 74 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982)
  • Dunlap v. Superior Court 817 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Dunlap v. Superior Court 817 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    (facilitation not a lesser-included offense of sale of narcotics); , (facilitation not a lesser-included offense of burglary or theft).
  • State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gooch 678 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gooch 678 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1984
    ("The appellant is not entitled to an instruction on another offense [facilitation] even though he might have been charged with and convicted of that offense.") [3] We agree with our court of appeals that A.R.S.
  • State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984
    Insisting that a co-conspirator's statement is hearsay, defendant invites us to follow Roberts and disapprove a
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Rule 801(d)(2)(E), Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S.; , State v. Nightwine, 138 Ariz. -
  • State v. Olea 678 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Olea 678 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Initially, , in which the court stated: It is obvious that the sealing and custody provisions have as their purpose the preservation of the materials in order to prevent alterations.
  • State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Nightwine 671 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Nightwine 671 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Rule 801(d)(2)(E), Arizona Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S.
  • State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Fletcher 670 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Fletcher 670 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    The trial court admitted Martinez’ out-of-court statements on the basis that appellant and Martinez were co-conspirators rendering the statements admissible pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence; , finding that there was a prima facie showing of a conspiracy and that appellant’s right to confrontation was not violated because the statements were reliable.
  • Payne v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 664 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1983