DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hatton, 568 P.2d 1040.

69 citing documents.

  • State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Kellywood 433 P.3d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • State v. Kellywood 433 P.3d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    See Fields , , ¶ 7, (discovery request anchored in speculation when motivated only by "conclusions, surmise, and conjecture"); see also State v. Hatton , , 150, ("[M]ere conjecture without more that certain information might be useful as exculpatory evidence is not sufficient to reverse a trial court's denial of a request for disclosure.").
  • State v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (); (“[W]here, as here, the victim-witness is an adult of normal intelligence with no history of mental problems, and the defense merely raises the issue without offering evidence on the record impugning t
  • State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “[M]ere conjecture without more that certain information might be useful as exculpatory evidence is not sufficient to reverse a trial court’s denial of a request for disclosure.”
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See, (“Lack of positive identification goes to the weight of evidence, not to its admissibility.”); (noting that evidence that was “not a conclusive link in the case goes only to the weight and not the admissibility”).
  • State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (holding that given a “blanket right to resist unlawful arrest,” “violence is not only invited but can be expected”); State v. Lockner, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Whether a person is in custody is an objective test based on whether “a reasonable man feel[s] that he was deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
  • Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    quoting Comm’n on the Courts, Report on the Task Force on Court Productivity 66 (1989)
  • State v. Windus 86 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Windus 86 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    § 13-404(B)(2) (justification defense unavailable when force is used or threatened to resist unlawful arrest, unless in response to excessive force used by officer); , (noting trend away from rule permitting right to resist unlawful arrest and toward settlements of such disputes in court).
  • State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    (“Discovery rules are not meant to be used for ‘fishing expeditions.’ ”).
  • State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (homeowner had no right to prevent officer with a valid warrant from entering his home); , (no right to resist a warrant exists, even if the warrant is later found illegal).
  • State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (trial court abused discretion in granting DUI defendant’s motion to produce breathalyzer ampoule when defendant failed to show how post-test chemical composition of ampoule could have .made valid contribution to defense); , (mere conjecture that undisclosed police reports about other disturbances in crime scene area might reveal other suspects insufficient to require disclosure); (defendant must demonstrate need based on materiality and facts, not conclusio
  • Linch v. THOMAS-DAVIS MED. CENTERS PC 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Linch v. THOMAS-DAVIS MED. CENTERS PC 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Linch v. Thomas-Davis Medical Centers, P.C. 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Linch v. Thomas-Davis Medical Centers, P.C. 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
    at 360-61 , 560 P.2d at 1267-68 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied sanctions after state’s witness testified to matters previously undisclosed); , (holding that listing the names of witnesses for use in the state’s case-in-chief was adequate notice for the defendant to prepare for their testimony on rebuttal).
  • State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
    The suspect’s right to cut off questioning must be “scrupulously honored.” , see also Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
    State v. Canedo, supra; see also United States v. Miller, 688 F.2d 652 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Witt, 648 F.2d 608 (9th Cir.1981).
  • State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Miranda warnings become a requirement only when a defendant is in custody or in fact is not free to leave the place of interrogation, , and the circumstances of each case determine whether an individual is in custody for purposes of administering Miranda warnings.
  • State v. Kimmel 703 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Kimmel 703 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
    State v. Lockner, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Riffle 638 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Riffle 638 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980