Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martin, 679 P.2d 489.

94 citing documents.

State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
quoting People v. Barndt, 199 Colo.
State v. Peterman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Peterman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stated differently, evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant is not tainted by an initial warrantless entry if “the warrant was based on information legally obtained.”
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
the trial court fundamentally erred when it gave a lesser-included offense instruction, depriving the defendant of a right essential to his defense); see also Freeney, 223 Ariz. at 113, ¶ 26, 219 P.3d at 1042 (“For Sixth Amendment purposes, when a defendant does not receive constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him, he is necessarily and actually prejudiced.”); (holding it is “inconceiveable” that an error allowing a jury to convict “based on acts not charged” could be harmless
State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Roberson 225 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Roberson 225 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, e.g., State v. Martin, 139 Ariz. *583 466, 473, (holding that the Arizona Constitution is “even more explicit” than the Fourth Amendment in safeguarding the home); -65 , -24 (1984) (“While Arizona’s constitutional provisions generally were intended to incorporate the federal protections ...
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 6 A conviction on an uncharged offense violates the United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to notice and Arizona’s “constitutional guarantees that an accused stand trial with clear notice of the crime with which he is charged.” , accord De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 362 , 57 S.Ct.
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(state cannot argue defendant guilty of uncharged transaction even if transaction associated with crime actually charged).
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 20, and Arizona’s “constitutional guarantees that an accused stand trial with clear notice of the crime with which he is charged.” , , (right to notice under Arizona Constitution equivalent to Sixth Amendment right).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
twenty days before trial that E. was claiming she had been the driver, he had been aware at least three days before trial that the state would be pursuing an alternative theory of actual physical control, and he had been informed the day before trial that A. would testify consistently with E. ¶14 We find this case distinguishable from Rivera’s primary authorities, P.2d 489 (1984), P.2d 651 (App. 1978).
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Thus, under state law, "officers may not make a warrantless entry of a home in the absence of exigent circumstances or other necessity.” Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 265 , 689 P.2d at 524 ; Ault, 150 Ariz. at 463 , 724 P.2d at 549 ; -74 , -97 (1984).
Petersen v. City of Mesa 63 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Petersen v. City of Mesa 63 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Turner v. Tennessee, 940 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir.1991); , (prosecutor may refuse to plea bargain for reasons of policy but not out of animus).
State v. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
2558 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996) ( , )
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
When police make an initial warrant-less entry, “ ‘[t]he products of a subsequent search under warrant may be admitted at trial, provided the warrant was based on information legally obtained.’ ”
State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
at 357, 359 , 897 P.2d at 659 , 661 (citing Ariz. Const, art. II, § 8; -65 , -24 (1984); , ).
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
“[T]he products of a subsequent search under warrant may be admitted at trial, provided the warrant was based on information legally obtained.” , , (holding that evidence seized during illegal search must be suppressed but that other evidence seized later pursuant to search warrant was admissible).
State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ault, 150 Ariz. at 463 , 724 P.2d at 549
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Hanna 839 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991