Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Million, 583 P.2d 897.

69 citing documents.

State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-15 (1978) (State may voluntarily dismiss a case to pursue an appeal of an order granting a motion to suppress).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
On several other occasions, our high court has indicated that probable cause is lacking unless the facts suggest that criminal activity is “more probable than not.”
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
Rather, “[t]he legislature, by statute, has given the 9 State a right to appeal from a pretrial suppression order.”
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State ex rel. Berning v. Alfred 923 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State ex rel. Berning v. Alfred 923 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
The comment to the rule states that its purpose is “to prevent a defendant from being automatically held in custody upon appeal by the state.” Though Rule 31.16 was not at issue there, , on which the respondent judge relied in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, our supreme court stated the general rule that “[ajbsent a stay granted by the appellate court in those rare instances where it is appropriate, the State may not leave the defendant in limbo or
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The state, , contends that its appeal from the municipal court’s order tolled the savings statute until the superior court issued its decision and that the second complaint was filed within the appropriate amount of time.
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Tvedt 787 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Tvedt 787 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Gerber 766 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1988
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Gerber 766 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1988
the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
State v. Fleischman 754 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Fleischman 754 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
PROPRIETY OF SPECIAL ACTION RELIEF Schembri argues that we should decline jurisdiction because the state has “an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal,” Ariz.R.Proc.Spec.Actions 1, 17A A.R.S.
State v. Sinclair 768 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Sinclair 768 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
-15 , -02 (1978); A.R.S.
Johnson v. Tucson City Court 751 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Johnson v. Tucson City Court 751 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Fimbres 733 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Fimbres 733 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
In reviewing whether probable cause exists, we look to the totality of the facts and circumstances, , known to police officers at the time of the arrest.
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
In reviewing whether probable cause exists, we look to the totality of the facts and circumstances, , known to the police officers at the time of the arrest.
State v. Chavez-Inzunza 701 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Chavez-Inzunza 701 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Eichorn 694 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Eichorn 694 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Kozlowski 692 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Kozlowski 692 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
this appeal of the suppression order followed, pursuant to A.R.S.
State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. McKinney, supra; State v. Mack, supra.
State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Bolt 689 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Bolt 689 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Mitchell 666 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Mitchell 666 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
After these motions were granted, , and appealed the suppression orders pursuant to A.R.S.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by