Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hensley, 669 P.2d 58.

59 citing documents.

State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(explaining a statement that “do[es] not offer any benefit to the defendant in exchange for information” is not an impermissible promise).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The key issue in harmless error analysis is “whether there is overwhelming additional evidence sufficient to establish the prosecution’s case.” ( -89 (1983)).
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
(finding defendant did not give statement in reliance on promise that statement would not be admissible in court because defendant made the statement the next day to different police officers after being read his Miranda rights).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
First, the detectives’ statements did not constitute a “promise” because they “did not offer any benefit’ to the defendant in exchange for information.” , (statement by officer that suspect’s confession would not be admissible in court did not constitute a promise); see Lopez, 174 Ariz. at 138 , 847 P.2d at 1085 (statement by officer that he would not play interrogation tapes for victim’s mother did not constitute a promise).
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 97036-02 792 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 97036-02 792 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In determining whether the error in admitting the minor’s statements requires reversal, the test in the context of a jury trial is “whether, absent the error, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty.”
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Hensley 774 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1989
State v. Hensley 774 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1989
A complete statement of past issues and facts can be found in two previous opinions: , (Hensley II); , (Hensley I).
State v. Wright 778 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Wright 778 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 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
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
■ In addition, with otherwise overwhelming evidence against Robinson the statements would not have altered the verdict, , and the error, if any, is harmless.
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
We also do not change the longstanding rule that the trial court’s determination that a confession was voluntarily given is reversible only upon clear and manifest error, see text, supra, at 584
State v. Spence 704 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Spence 704 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
The facts are set out more fully in this Court’s
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Allen 682 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1984
State v. Allen 682 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1984
State v. Rivera 678 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1984