DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Summerlin, 675 P.2d 686.

45 citing documents.

  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶13 “[A]ffidavits are to be interpreted in a common sense and realistic manner.” (quoting United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1970)).
  • State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (discussing how most informants are individuals seeking favor with officers by providing information).
  • State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • 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
    Yet the “‘reasonable,’” Will, 138 Ariz. at 49 , 672 P.2d at 1319 , , “responsible,” , “ ‘prudent,’ ” Spears, 184 Ariz. at 285 , 908 P.2d at 1070 , quoting Carter, 145 Ariz. at 110 , 700 P.2d at 497 , and “ ‘eautio[us],’ ” , quoting United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1970), person employed in the analysis is necessarily someone who is concerned not only with the potential inferences of criminal activity that might be drawn from certain facts, but also with the need to safeguard
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    Similarly, -35 , -95 (1983), we held that the spousal communication privilege was waived because the defendant spoke to his wife knowing that police officers could hear him and were listening to him.
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
    -36 , -96 (1983) (dismissing the argument that the weighing process results in unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious results).
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
    Heinousness and depravity focus upon the “defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense, as reflected by his words and acts.” Fulminante, 161 Ariz. at 255 , 778 P.2d at 620 ( , ).
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
    in which anonymous tips have been held to be reliable, arguing that those decisions are in conflict with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
    Carter, 145 Ariz. at 110 , 700 P.2d at 497
  • State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
    1775 , 84 L.Ed.2d 834 (1985); , State v. (Robert Douglas) Smith, supra.
  • State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
    a defendant requested that he be able to speak to his wife.
  • State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
    United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1970).
  • State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
    rcumstances shown; death penalty affirmed upon finding that killing was done in expectation of pecuniary gain and in a heinous and depraved manner); , (no mitigating circumstances found; death penalty affirmed upon finding that murder was committed for pecuniary gain and in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner); , (no mitigating circumstances found; death affirmed upon finding that defendant had previously been convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence on another p
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • 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
    quoting United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1970).
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
    ( , supplemented in , ).
  • State v. Stanhope 676 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Stanhope 676 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    That’s just to sort of set the stage for you and give you some idea of some of the events that are claimed to have taken place.” Our supreme court has just rejected a