Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nelson, 633 P.2d 391.

36 citing documents.

State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶29 Regardless of the waiver, however, although a one-person show-up is inherently suggestive, the show-up identification procedures “are not improper if conducted near the time of the crime or at the scene of the crime and the evidence shows that the identification was reliable,”
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
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. Lopez 754 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Lopez 754 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
“First, was the evidence material to the question of guilt or the degree of punishment; second, was the defendant prejudiced by its destruction; and, third, was the government acting in good faith when it destroyed the evidence?”
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Vaughn, 12 Ariz.App.
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. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Probable cause for an arrest exists when the police officer has “reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances which are sufficient to lead a reasonable man to believe an offense is being of has been committed and that the person to be arrested is committing or did commit it.”
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
at 419 , , where the court, citing Jones and Mosley, supra, said, “Evidence is sufficient to survive a motion for directed verdict of acquittal when reasonable minds may differ whether the evidence establishes guilty knowledge.” 129 Ariz. at 587 , .
State v. Newell 670 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Newell 670 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
2860, 2864 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981)