Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Emery, 642 P.2d 838.

58 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
not subjected to any “express questioning” by law enforcement at the hospital, he argues that by telling him he “‘ran’ from a deputy and killed someone,” the officer’s words and actions were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” and were therefore the “functional equivalent of interrogation.” to support this argument, but neither case applies.
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
State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
An officer has probable cause that an offense has been committed when he observes “facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of guilt.” (citation omitted).
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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
at 558 , 810 P.2d at 186 ; -06 , -51 (1982), it is not without limits.
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“[P]robable cause has been 6 STATE v. HERSUM Decision of the Court defined as such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously ent
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Thus, a defendant’s statements are prima facie involuntary, and he or she need do nothing more than timely object or move for their suppression to trigger the state’s burden, notwithstanding “[a]ny suggestion in Rule 16.2(b) that more is required.” Ryan, 121 Ariz. at 387 , 590 P.2d at 926 ; , (accused’s statements prima facie involuntary).
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
“Either or both of these requirements can be dispensed with only if ‘justice so requires.’ ” , (referring to Ariz. R. Evid.
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
Crimmins, 137 Ariz. at 41, 668 P.2d at 884
Trebus v. Davis 944 P.2d 1235 Ariz. 1997
Herrell v. Sargeant 944 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1997
Herrell v. Sargeant 944 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1997
Trebus v. Davis 944 P.2d 1235 Ariz. 1997
See Crimmins, 137 Ariz. at 41 , 668 P.2d at 884
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
further elucidates the law on this subject and applies it to facts similar to those before us. In Emery , the defendant and a confederate were charged with murder.
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
our supreme court said: If a state resorts to the grand jury procedure, the due process and equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment require utilization of an unbiased grand jury and the presentation of evidence in a fair and impartial manner.
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. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
in support of his position that Detective Lowe’s statements concerning the death penalty rendered his confession involuntary.
State v. Britain 752 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Britain 752 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Ferreira 731 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Ferreira 731 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Although any subsequent statement is so inherently suspect as to be presumptively involuntary, , and is to be viewed with skepticism, Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 111 n. 2, 96 S.Ct.
State v. Inman 728 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Inman 728 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
1602, 1627 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 723 (1966)
State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
223, 228 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); -506 , -851 (1982).
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 718 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 718 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
we said that our rule 613 (allowing impeachment of a witness with a prior inconsistent statement) is identical with the federal rule.
State v. Emery 688 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1984
State v. Emery 688 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1984
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
Appellant contends that the admission of Klettlinger’s
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY. 668 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1983
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY. 668 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1983