Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ceja, 546 P.2d 6.

48 citing documents.

State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“We do not think that because a defendant left the scene of the offense and the instrument with which the offense was committed was never found that these circumstances justify the giving of a flight instruction.”).
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
*114 §§ 8-291 to -291.11; , (concluding that a rule putting a thirty-day limitation on confinement within a mental health facility did not place a time limit on holding competency hearings); Nowell, 219 Ariz. at 406, ¶ 21 , 199 P.3d at 661 (disagreeing with a trial court’s statutory interpretation that was “contrary t
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
at ¶¶ 37-42, 185 P.3d at 120-21 ; see also *346 , (holding detective’s statement not hearsay because not offered for substantive content but to show effect on defendant during interrogation); , (Statements made to an accused during interrogation are not objectionable as hearsay because they are “not offered to prove the truth of the words spoken, but to prove the conversation between appellant and the police officer.”).
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
(finding questions not offered for truth but to establish fact of questioning); (finding questions offered only for their effect on the hearer); (finding questions offered merely to give interrogation context).
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
Hearsay In answer to a question from the prosecutor concerning how defendant had become a suspect in this case, Detective John Sanders of the Pima County Sheriffs office was permitted to answer, over a hearsay objection, that it was because of “Mr. Wertheim [another officer] matching a print found at the Sherrill residence with Mr. Eastlack’s.” On appeal, , as requiring reversal.
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1988
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1988
-13 , -22 (1981); , State v. Arnold, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Weigel 702 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Weigel 702 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Noleen 688 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noleen 688 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1984
The defendant claims there was no evidence of hot pursuit and therefore the flight instruction was not warranted, -41 , -8 (1976).
State v. Brown 656 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Brown 656 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
our supreme court reviewed *402 rule 8.4(a) and held that “there is no set time during which a hearing must be conducted, and rule 8.4(a) does not limit the excluded periods to any specific number of days.” 113 Ariz. at 43 , 546 P.2d at 10 (emphasis added).
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
appeal after remand , , cert.
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
State v. Flores 603 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Flores 603 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
appeal after remand, , cert.
State v. Ferguson 586 P.2d 190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Ferguson 586 P.2d 190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 173(4) at 353.
State v. Ceja 565 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ceja 565 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1977
State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Kidwell 556 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Kidwell 556 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
We, therefore, hold that the time from the filing of appellant’s Rule 11 motion until his competency determination on June 2 is excludable under Rule 8.4(a)
State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Wilson 553 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1976
State v. Wilson 553 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1976
American Honda Motor Co., , , Rule 21.3(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R
State v. Shields 546 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Shields 546 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
filed February 11, 1976.