DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Strickland, 556 P.2d 320.

29 citing documents.

  • State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
    ¶140 In Nottingham, the court of appeals acknowledged this Court’s “that suggestive identification procedures occurring as part of formal court proceedings, like those arranged by police, may trigger the procedural protections set forth in Dessureault.” Nottingham, 231 Ariz. at 25 ¶ 8, 289 41
  • State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See, ¶ 34, (identification made at show-up almost twelve hours after first encounter was fully reliable); (ten days between witness and subsequent identification does not necessarily render identification unreliable).
  • State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968).
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
    Cf., , (witness identification reliable after a “few hours”); , (ten days between witness and subsequent identification of defendant does not necessarily render identification unreliable).
  • State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
    (holding under similar facts that ten-day time period between crime and identification cast doubt on identification’s reliability).
  • State v. Swoopes 747 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Swoopes 747 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    State v. Dessureault, supra.
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
    (ten days too long where witness saw attacker for very brief moment and at a point in time where she had no discernible interest in remembering what perpetra *532 tor looked like); State v. McCall, supra (fourteen days not too long where victim had ample opportunity to observe attacker at time of
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
    Thus, this is not a , in which the victim failed on three occasions to identify the defendant and then finally identified him after viewing him at a preliminary hearing.
  • State v. Edwards 677 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
    While we have ruled that, in at least one case, ten days after the crime was too distant to permit a reliable identification, , each case must be considered on its own facts.
  • State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    the one-man show up at the preliminary hearing may have been unduly suggestive.
  • State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
    State v. Dessureault, supra.