Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rosengren, 14 P.3d 303.

109 citing documents.

State v. Stempel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶17 analogous manslaughter cases, the superior court found that the violation of the right to counsel did not foreclose a fair trial.
Lincoln v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Lincoln v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“We defer to the [superior] court’s factual findings that are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.” ¶ 9 (App. 2000).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Baltierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Baltierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 9 (App. 2000) (noting deference only to “the trial court’s factual findings that are supported by the record”).
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
the appropriate remedy[.]”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); ¶ 18 (App. 2000) (“[D]ismissal is not the exclusive or automatic remedy for a denial of the right to counsel, even in cases in which the defendant’s alleged intoxication is essential to proving the offense.”).
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 4 (App. 2016); –16 ¶ 9 (App. 2000).
State v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
¶36 –17 ¶ 29 (App. 2000), Smith claims that he had a due process right to oppose the State’s 9 STATE V. SMITH Opinion of the Court application for the CSLI Order.
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. McCartney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. McCartney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“We defer to the trial court’s factual findings that are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.” ¶ 9 (App. 2000).
State v. Garfio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garfio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Elise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Elise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 9 (App. 2000) ( ¶ 6 (App. 1999)).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-16, ¶ 9, -07 (App. 2000); ¶ 62, ¶ 16
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Petramala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Petramala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. 10 of Pima Cty., ¶ 5, (citation omitted), we will defer to the court’s factual findings as long as they are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous, ¶ 9, (citations omitted).
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
We review the court’s application of exclusionary principles de novo.2
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
ce prevented defendant from having attorney arrange independent blood test when attorney available by telephone); -63 (App. 2012) (police unreasonably deprived defendant of access to phone book); Rumsey, ¶¶ 9-10, 238 P.3d at 645-46 (police prevented defendant from consulting with attorney present at station); ¶¶ 3-4, 10, -07 (App. 2000) (police prevented defendant from calling father, an out-of-state attorney); -86, -06 (App. 1995) (police did not provide defendant any opportunity to contact att
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Million, 120 Ariz. at 14- 15; ¶ 8 (App. 2000) (State permitted to voluntarily dismiss charges and appeal an order suppressing defendant’s statements and DUI test results).
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
based on exclusionary rule principles.”
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
-07 (App. 2000); see also United States v. Garza-Juarez, 992 F.2d 896, 903 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court’s decision on due process claims reviewed de novo).
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014