Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hall, 586 P.2d 1266.

52 citing documents.

State v. Madril Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Madril Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See, e.g., McVay, 127 Ariz. at 20 (determining an officer’s statement that defendant’s “cooperation would be made known to the warden and it was possible this would have an effect on his request to be released from isolation” was a “possibility rather than a promise”); (authorities’ statement that if appellant cooperated “it would possibly have an effect on the sentencing” was not a direct or implied promise); –98 ¶ 22–23 (App. 2015) (detective’s statement that it was possible for appellant to b
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶16 “In Arizona, confessions are prima facie involuntary and the burden is on the state to show they are voluntary.”
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
-57 , -69 (1978) (finding no promise when, in addition to statement that cooperation could affect sentencing, defendant was also told there would be “no deals”).
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
United States v. Harrison, 34 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Willard, 919 F.2d 606, 608 (9th Cir.1990)); United States v. Leon Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir.1988); Tapia, 159 Ariz. at 290 , 767 P.2d at 11 ; -57 , -69 (1978).
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 165 , 800 P.2d at 1273
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
2041, 2047 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 862 (1973)
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Thomas, 148 Ariz. at 227, 714 P.2d at 397 ( , ).
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
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
In determining the voluntariness of the confession, the court looks to the totality of the circumstances involved, , and the court may consider the defendant’s knowledge of the criminal justice system.
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
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. Encinas 647 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1982
State v. Encinas 647 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1982
* * * Once the trial court finds that the confession is voluntary, such finding will not be upset on appeal absent clear and manifest error.” , (citations omitted).
State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
State v. Rivera 624 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Rivera 624 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. McVay 617 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1980
State v. McVay 617 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1980