Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Edwards, 665 P.2d 59.

82 citing documents.

State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A court may give a flight instruction "if the state presents evidence from which jurors may infer 'consciousness of guilt for the crime charged.'" ¶ 44 (2013) ().
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶11 Before the superior court may give a flight instruction, the State must present evidence of flight after a crime from which jurors may infer a defendant’s “consciousness of guilt for the crime charged.” ¶ 44 (2013) ().
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(defendant's argument that his flight fifteen months after the crime occurred was insufficient to support an inference of guilt was rejected); (finding flight instruction proper where defendant fled to another state the morning after shooting the victim).
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
In criminal cases, we also continue to require mutuality of parties or their privities as an additional element of issue preclusion, which is consistent with the Restatement’s more general issue preclusion rule which applies in a “subsequent action between the parties,” see Restatement § 27.
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(no per se rule requiring a subpoena to establish state's good faith effort to obtain witness); Montaño, 204 Ariz. at 420, ¶ 26.
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Parker, 231 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 44
State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Ordinarily, a good-faith effort would require issuance of a subpoena and diligent efforts to serve it.”).
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 44, (“[T]here must be evidence of flight from which can be inferred a consciousness of guilt for the crime charged.”) ( ).
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
The trial court may give a flight instruction if the state presents evidence from which jurors may infer “consciousness of guilt for 20 the crime charged.”
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
Bible, 175 Ariz. at 592, 858 P.2d at 1195; (holding flight evidence properly admitted when defendant fled from police fifteen months after the crime was committed).
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
And a good faith search means that “obvious and essential leads must be investigated.”
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
ne or more offenses charged in an indictment, information or complaint after the evidence on either side is closed, if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” As used in this rule, “substantial evidence” means “evidence that *19 reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
Coulter v. Industrial Commission 10 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Coulter v. Industrial Commission 10 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
United States v. Miller, 830 F.2d 1073, 1077-78 (9th Cir.1987).
State v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(defendant caused victim’s death where victim suffered fatal heart attack during robbery); , (defendant’s acts of shooting the victim found to be cause of victim’s death where victim was subsequently placed on life support system for three days bef
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
2531, 2538-39 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); , 181—83, -65 (1983).
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
While nothing in Rule 804 suggests that service of a subpoena is a per se showing of good-faith efforts, we have said that “the true issue is whether the state made a good-faith effort to locate the witness so that he or she could be put under subpoena.” , ( , (“If a witness cannot be served by subpoena, it then becomes a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether a sufficient effort has been made to place the witness under subpoena.”)).
State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
MR. DARDIS (For the Defendant): Your Honor, under rule 804 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, under a case called State versus Robert Edwards, 136 Arizona 177, [ ,] a 1983 case, this witness is not unavailable, for purposes of invoking the 804 exception to allowing the preliminary hearing transcript to be used against Mr. Gonzales Medina.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
to meet the witnesses against him face to face, ...” Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24; , see also A.R.S.
State v. Archie 831 P.2d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Archie 831 P.2d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992