Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Warner, 812 P.2d 1079.

42 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
But this court has already determined that the denial of a pretrial interview or deposition of the victim “does not impair any substantive or vested rights” of a defendant because there is “no federal constitutional right to discovery.” - 65 (App. 1990) (citing Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977)).
E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
(“[W]hile the state has standing to assert a victim’s rights, it has no authority to waive those rights.” (internal citation omitted)).
State v. Welty 308 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Welty 308 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Also relevant to our decision to accept special action jurisdiction is that the issue presented “is one of first impression, involves only questions of law[,] and is of statewide importance to the criminal justice system.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“[T]he constitutional amendment contained in Proposition 104 became effective upon the November 27[, 1990,] proclamation by the governor.”
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
And, “[a] statute is not impermissibly retroactive if it is merely procedural and does not affect an earlier established substantive right.” Gum, , 153 P.3d at 424 , , , (although legislation generally will only apply prospectively, “the rule is otherwise where the legislation is merely procedural in nature and does not affect substantive rights”).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (no federal right); State v. O’Neil, , (no federal or Arizona right); 11 , (holding no Arizona constitutional right to pretrial discovery).
Zuther v. State 3 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Zuther v. State 3 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JV-512600 and JV-512797 930 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JV-512600 and JV-512797 930 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“Although the general rule is that legislation will have prospective application only, the rule is otherwise where the legislation is merely procedural in nature and does not affect substantive rights.”
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(purely procedural matters apply retroactively); , (the manner in which appeal is exercised is procedural).
State Ex Rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 875 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 875 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Knutson v. County of Maricopa Ex Rel. Romley 857 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Knutson v. County of Maricopa Ex Rel. Romley 857 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The victim argues, however, that recent cases have applied the provisions of the constitutional amendment retroactively
State v. Stevens 844 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Stevens 844 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
§ 1-244 (1989) (“No statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.”); , (general rule that legislation will have prospective application does not apply when “legislation is merely procedural in nature and does not affect substantive rights”).
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 843 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 843 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of City of Tucson 844 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of City of Tucson 844 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Knapp v. Martone, supra; State v. O’Neil
Knapp v. Martone 823 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1992
Knapp v. Martone 823 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1992
State v. Warner, 168 * , (Victims’ Bill of Rights giving victim right to refuse an interview is procedural and therefore applies to cases pending on date amendment became effective).
State v. O'NEIL 836 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. O'NEIL 836 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977)
Day v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Day v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
We note, however, , (petition for review pending).