Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Barnes, 606 P.2d 802.
- State v. Dinkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- State v. Dinkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Foster
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ased approach, emphasizing that it is “the compulsive aspect of custodial interrogation, and not the strength or content of the government’s suspicions at the time the questioning was conducted, which led the court to impose the Miranda requirements with regard to custodial questioning.” Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 346- 47 (1976) (citation and quotation omitted); (citation and quotation omitted) (stating Miranda warnings are not required simply “because the questioned person is one
- State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
-
State v. Cruz
181 P.3d 196
Ariz. 2008
“Lapse of time is only one factor to be considered.”
- State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
- State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
- State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
- State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
- State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Carr 743 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1987
-
State v. Carr
743 P.2d 1386
Ariz. 1987
*473 589-90, -06 (1980) (“If the totality of the circumstances indicates that the statement was made in a state of shock ...
- Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd. 725 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
-
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd.
725 P.2d 736
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
199 , 78 L.Ed.2d 174 (1983)
- State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
-
State v. Superior Court, Pima County
719 P.2d 283
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
See United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir.1979); , , , , cert.
- State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
-
State v. Carter
700 P.2d 488
Ariz. 1985
however, this circumstance does not require a finding of custody: Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be
- Jones v. Munn 681 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1984
- Jones v. Munn 681 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Rivera 678 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1984
-
State v. Rivera
678 P.2d 1373
Ariz. 1984
State v. Ritchey, 107 Ariz. at 555 , 490 P.2d at 561 , citing Wigmore, supra § 1750.
- State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
-
State v. Yslas
676 P.2d 1118
Ariz. 1984
(statement made twenty minutes after event admissible), , (statements of children, who are less likely to fabricate, made at least forty-five minutes after the event admissible), , vacate
- State v. Starcevich 678 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Starcevich 678 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
-
State v. Just
675 P.2d 1353
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27
- State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
-
State v. Rybolt
650 P.2d 1258
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In order to comment on the evidence, “the court must express an opinion *282 as to what the evidence proves.” , (emphasis in original).
- State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
-
State v. Hartford
636 P.2d 1204
Ariz. 1981
Weapons which have been held inherently dangerous as a matter of law include a “rather large” knife which was “like a bayonet,” , a 14-inch prison-made “shank,” , a switchblade, , a hatchet, , and straight-edged razors, Wilson v. State, 85 Nev.