Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arnett, 579 P.2d 542.

192 citing documents.

State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
939, 949-50 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979); *197
Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Because its language is unambiguous, the statute is not subject to construction or interpretation, , and clearly is not applicable to Dow’s refiled complaint.
State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
State v. Smith 705 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Smith 705 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Serrano 702 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Serrano 702 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
§ 13-1504(A)(2) provides that a person commits criminal trespass in the first degree by knowingly “entering any residential yard and, without lawful authority, looking into the residential structure thereon in reckless disregard of infringing on the inhabitant’s right of privacy.” The threshold principles upon which we review the constitutionality of a , : “* * * There is a presumption that the legislature acts constitutionally and when there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for the
State v. Schad 691 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984
State v. Schad 691 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
939, 949-50 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979)
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
1492 , 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982)
State v. Salzman 679 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Salzman 679 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Crivellone 675 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1983
State v. Crivellone 675 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
“[T]he State must show ‘by a preponderance of the evidence’ that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Rodriguez 669 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Rodriguez 669 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
1 , citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Feldstein 654 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Feldstein 654 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
163 , 70 L.Ed.2d 133 ; , in the absence of clear and manifest error, this court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of statements.
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
The defendant is not entitled to a particular jury, but only a fair one, , , , and unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error.
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. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
And I said, ‘Go ahead, and I will bring Officer Oviedo back in the room’.” Even though the State must show “ ‘by a preponderance of the evidence’ that the confession was freely and voluntarily made,” , , , and the trial court must look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if the State has met its burden, Arnett and Knapp, supra, we will not overturn the trial court’s
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981