Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gortarez, 686 P.2d 1224.

45 citing documents.

State v. Kabinto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kabinto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(holding issues not raised in appellate briefing “must be considered waived”).
Gary Dwayne Skaggs v. Hon. Fink 540 P.3d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Gary Dwayne Skaggs v. Hon. Fink 540 P.3d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
FINK Opinion of the Court appeal.” (allowing review of denial of motion for redetermination of probable cause “when a defendant has had to stand trial on an indictment which the government knew was based partially on perjured, material testimony”).
State v. Libert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Libert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 31 (2004); (“With one exception, review of matters relevant only to the grand jury proceedings cannot be sought by appeal from a conviction.”); ¶5 (App. 2018) (“[S]pecial action is a criminal defendant’s only avenue for review of a denial of a motion to redetermine probable ca
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[W]e note that appellant has no standing to challenge the validity of tapes of telephone calls to which he was not a party.”).
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
§§ 2510-2520, the federal wiretap statute colloquially known as “Title III.” ¶ 4, 13 (1984).
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(upholding authentication testimony for recordings provided after police officer compared them to known recording); see also United States v. Alvarez, 860 F.2d 801, 810-11 (7th Cir. 1988) (testimony of witness who had heard only voice exemplar admissible for purposes of authenticat
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
See State v. Verive, 128 Ariz. 570, 574-75, -26 (App. 1981); see also State v. Gortarez, 141 Ariz. 254, 258, (discussing the denial of a motion for a redetermination of probable cause).
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
That one exception to the rule occurs “when a defendant has had to stand trial on an indictment which the government knew was based partially on perjured, material testimony.” , (citing United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781 (9th Cir.1974)).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See, e.g., Valdez, 91 Ariz. at 277-79 , 371 P.2d at 896-98 (polygraph evidence); -35 , -01 (1979) (breathalyzer); -66 , -36 (1984) (“voiceprint” evidence); State v. Superior Court (Blake), -80 , -82 (1986) (horizontal gaze nystagmus testing); -42 , -29 (1988) (phosphoglucomutase (PGM) blood grouping); State v. Velasco, 165
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
See, -66 , -36 (1984) (excluding "voiceprint” evidence in criminal trials); State ex rel.
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(defendant may not challenge matters relevant only to grand jury proceedings by appeal from conviction); , (only exception to special action relief of denial of motion for probable cause redetermination occurs when grand jury proceedings are tainted with information the state knew was based on perjured, material testimony).
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
Montgomery v. Sheldon 893 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1995
Montgomery v. Sheldon 893 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1995
(“The issues not raised in [the] brief to this Court must be considered waived.”).
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
An exception to this rule exists, however, when a defendant “has had to stand trial on an indictment which the government knew was based partially on perjured, material testimony.”
State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Arizona’s statute has been upheld as constitutional, , , , but appellant’s challenge to it has not previously been addressed.
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); , State ex rel.