Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Alvarado, 591 P.2d 973.

60 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
s not require a voluntariness hearing “absent some objection by the defendant to the admission of his confession,” and typically a defendant must “object to the use of his confession prior to trial unless the opportunity to do so did not exist, or the defendant was unaware of the grounds for the motion, or the court, in its discretion, chooses to entertain the motion at trial.”
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 16.1; -88 (1979) (affirming 20-day pretrial deadline to file voluntariness motions and noting that "[i]n light of [Supreme Court precedent], we conclude that although it is the defendant who must move for a voluntariness hearing, it is not mandated that he be allowed to so move at all stages of the proceedings"); see al
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(quoting Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 86 (1977); (“[A]bsent some objection by the defendant to the admission of his confession, the Constitution does not require a voluntariness hearing to be held.”); -39, ¶¶ 6, 10 (App. 2018) (holding courts are neither constitutionally nor statutorily obligated to conduct voluntariness he
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
see also State v. Alvarado , , 487 n.2, , 975 (1979) (stating that in Jackson the defendant "never specifically objected that his confession was involuntary," but that Wainwright "interprets the [ Jackson ] defendant's line of questioning ...
State v. Snee 417 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Snee 417 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
.”); (recognizing that although parties must move for a voluntariness hearing twenty days before trial, “the trial judge, in his discretion, may also entertain a motion for a voluntariness hearing at trial”).
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“[I]t is the defendant who must move for a voluntariness hearing[.]”).
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(noting the burden shifts to the State to prove the defendant’s statements were freely and voluntarily 2 Belvin was also charged with one count of misconduct involving weapons, but that charge was severed and then later dismissed.
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Linares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Linares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13–3988 requires the trial court to “determine any issue as to voluntariness” before admitting a statement into evidence, the burden of raising any issue of voluntariness rests in the first instance with the defendant
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(citing Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)).
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(no prejudice found from alleged Rule 17 violation when record contained colloquy between court and defendant that “demonstrate^] that the defendant was aware of his constitutional rights”).
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Medrano-Barraza 949 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Medrano-Barraza 949 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
§ 13-3988; , , (the state has the burden of showing that a defendant’s statements are freely and voluntarily made).
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Barnes 805 P.2d 1007 Ariz. 1991
State v. Barnes 805 P.2d 1007 Ariz. 1991
See, -90 , -78 (1979) (failure to advise a defendant of specific constitutional rights he waives by admitting a prior conviction is not reversible error when the record demonstrates that the defendant is already aware of those rights).
State v. Wilson 793 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Wilson 793 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977)
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
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
Ryan v. Superior Court, supra.
State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
State v. Alder 704 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Alder 704 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Wargo 680 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Wargo 680 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984