Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Baumann, 610 P.2d 38.

89 citing documents.

Soto v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Soto v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Royalty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Royalty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
–09 (1980) (acknowledging that grand juries are not “in the business of holding minitrials”).
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The purpose of a grand jury is to determine “whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the individual being investigated was the one who committed it.”
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“The purpose of voir dire examination is to determine whether prospective jurors can fairly and impartially decide the case at bar and the scope of such examination is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” ( and Ariz. R. Crim.
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 44-2033; (“there must be strict compliance with all the requirements of the exemption statute”).
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A coconspirator’s statement is admissible “when it has been shown that a conspiracy exists and the defendant and the declarant are parties to the conspiracy.”
Shorey v. Arizona Corp. Commission 359 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shorey v. Arizona Corp. Commission 359 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Blue-sky laws “are designed to protect the public from fraud and deceit arising in [securities] transactions.”5
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Maricopa, -75, ¶ 31, -25 (2004) (Hurwitz, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing State v. Superior Court (Mauro), ); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-413 (requiring indictment be based upon probable cause); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“[The grand jury’s] duty is to determine ‘whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the individual being investigated was the one who committed it.’” ( )).
Sanchez v. Ainley 308 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sanchez v. Ainley 308 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(A grand jury’s “primary function” is “determining whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the individual being investigated was the one who committed it.”); , (“The role of the gra
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“The duty of a grand jury is to decide whether probable cause exists.”
McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
¶ 57 “The purpose of voir dire examination is to determine whether prospective jurors can fairly and impartially decide the case at bar.”
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
¶ 68 Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), “[statements of a co-conspirator will be admitted when it has been shown that a conspiracy exists and the defendant and the declarant are parties to the conspiracy.”
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Trebus v. Davis 944 P.2d 1235 Ariz. 1997
Trebus v. Davis 944 P.2d 1235 Ariz. 1997
The grand jury’s primary function is to determine “whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the individual being investigated was the one who committed it.”
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
1199 , 117 L.Ed.2d 439 (1992) ( , ).
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
O'Meara v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
O'Meara v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
We have previously stated that a co-conspirator’s statements are admissible “when it has been shown that a conspiracy exists and the defendant and the declarant are parties to the conspiracy.”
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Korzep v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987