Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Keener, 520 P.2d 510.

43 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
¶¶ 6-7 (App. 1999) (holding that confrontation rights do not apply to the same extent at a pretrial suppression hearing as they do at trial); Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See State v. Treadaway , , 168, (offer of proof not necessary when substance of potential testimony apparent); see also State v. Keener , , 465, (hearsay generally admissible in suppression hearing); Ariz. R. Evid.
Caravetta v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Caravetta v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Physicians Healthcare, ¶ 30 (2013) (-66 (1974)).
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
see also State v. 3 STATE v. JENSEN Decision of the Court its discretion in denying Jensen’s motion to preclude the breath-test results on the ground the State could not show the Intoxil
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
whether crime committed in especially cruel manner); Doerr, ¶¶ 25, 26, 969 P.2d at 14 STATE v. WILLIAMSON Opinion of the Court 1175 (testimony that police officer believed defendant untruthful during questioning on day of arrest did not constitute opinion on witness’ credibility); (in possession for sale prosecution, officer’s testimony drugs possessed for sale properly admitted).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
-66, -14 (1974) (“Whether a witness is qualified as an expert witness rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be reviewed unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion.”).
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
State v. Keener, 110 Ariz. 462, 465-66, -14 (1974).
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Furthermore, as the state points out, Fornof’s P.2d 510 (1974), which we have no authority to disregard.
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Soule 811 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1991
State v. Carreon 729 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Carreon 729 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. 1969 Volkswagon Bus, Vin 239199800, 1977 Wyoming License No. 2365J 586 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. 1969 Volkswagon Bus, Vin 239199800, 1977 Wyoming License No. 2365J 586 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Montano 571 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Montano 571 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Pike 557 P.2d 1068 Ariz. 1976
State v. Pike 557 P.2d 1068 Ariz. 1976
Thus it has been said by this court that: “The real issue involved in the determination of an issue such as probable cause is not whether the informant lied to the officers but whether the affiant is truthful in his recitation of what he was told and whether that information is credible and reliable.” (emphasis added)
State v. Salazar 557 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Salazar 557 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. White 549 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. White 549 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
[ , ] In the current case Robinson was subjected to cross-examination and the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he relied in good faith on credible information supplied by a reliable informant.
State v. Owens 540 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1975
State v. Owens 540 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1975
: “Whether a witness is qualified as an expert witness rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be reviewed unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion.
State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975