Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rodriguez, 612 P.2d 484.

68 citing documents.

State v. Jacobson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-35 (1980); ¶ 11 (App. 1999), ¶ 17 (2009).
rs/se v. Hon. thompson/vanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
rs/se v. Hon. thompson/vanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
THOMPSON/VANDERS Opinion of the Court Ariz. 283, 285–86 (1981) (holding that, based on the defendant’s showing of the content within a protected record, the statute protecting confidentiality of juvenile records maintained by the department of corrections was defeated by the defendant’s constitutional right to effective cross- examination); –31 (1980) (finding an exception to the confidentiality of juvenile case dispositions under Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Reyes 360 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reyes 360 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
That order was not an order “granting a motion to suppress the use of evidence.” It is true that our supreme court has defined a motion in limine as “nothing more than a motion to suppress specifically authorized by Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
Canion, ¶ 26, (“Unless the circumstances are exceptional, a defendant is bound by his counsel’s waiver of his constitutional rights.” (citing Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443 (1965); P.2d 484 (1980))).
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
10 argues that Guthrie “d[oes] not preclude a defendant from introducing studies or other evidence about variations in the population.” ¶20 For purposes of our review, we treat the state’s motion in limine as a motion to suppress, and consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the city court’s ruling
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(internal citations omitted)); , ("[T]he power to control trial strategy belongs to counsel."
In re MH 2009-001264 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In re MH 2009-001264 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(internal citations omitted)); ("[T]he power to control trial strategy belongs to counsel.” (citations omitted)); -03 , -35 (1979) (finding an attorney’s decision whether to call a witness a tactical decision the court was reluctant to second-guess); Wilson v. Gray
State of Arizona v. Anthony Sanchez Bejarano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Anthony Sanchez Bejarano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶7 In Rodriguez II, the court justified its departure from Lelevier by relying primarily on the Arizona Supreme Court’s unrelated decision in State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 28, (Rodriguez I).2 There, our supreme court characterized a motion in limine as the functional equivalent of a motion to suppress to explain how the former motion might be procedurally authorized under Rule 16, Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Not only would it hamper the attorney, it might force the *338 trial judge to interrupt the proceedings whenever a waiver might be occurring in order to protect the record on appeal____ [Sjuch a procedure would distract and confuse a jury [and could] slow a trial to a snail’s pace____” , -87 (Alaska 1971).
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The Arizona Supreme Court has held that, in the criminal context, a motion in limine "is nothing more than a motion to suppress specifically authorized by Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
3, 9, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) (acquiescence by counsel to defendant’s appearance at trial in prison garb); , (waiver by counsel of defendant’s right to cab witnesses); , review denied, June 22, 1982 (waiver by counsel of defendant’s presence during peremptory strikes).
State v. Tovar 930 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
R.M. v. L.C. 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Matter of Estate of RC 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Matter of Estate of RC 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
R.M. v. L.C. 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “It is apparent that in criminal cases, a ‘motion in limine’ is nothing more than a motion to suppress specifically authorized by Rule 16____” Id.
State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The court’s , where the Arizona Supreme Court equated a motion in limine with a motion to suppress under Rule 16, Ariz.R.Crim.P.
State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
(defense counsel has power to control trial strategy in criminal proceedings).
State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
Calling an expert witness is a matter of trial strategy, , and unless counsel’s decision has no “reasonable basis,” a reviewing court will not find ineffectiveness.
State v. LaGrand 733 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 733 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1987
State v. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
180 , 74 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982)
State v. Lee 689 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lee 689 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1984
564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); , and the decision as to what witnesses to call is a tactical, strategic decision.
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983