Cited by

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

94 citing documents.

State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Constitution, which more explicitly protects sanctity of the home than its federal counterpart); -65 , -24 (1984) (in absence of exigent circumstances, warrantless searches go beyond protections of art. 2, § 8 of Arizona Constitution, despite rulings of U.S. Supreme Court under counterpart provisions of U.S. Constitution); , (refusal to allow warrantless search, *52 based on constitutional sanctity of the home).
State v. Rodriguez 761 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Rodriguez 761 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
While the real party in interest agrees that it is similarly within the prosecutor’s discretion to decide in what cases, if any, to plea bargain, , he claims that the prosecutor cannot abandon this discretionary power.
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
1 , , Ariz.R.Evid., 801(d)(2)(E), 17A A.R.S.
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
270 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960)
State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970)
State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
-65 , -24 (1984); -74 , -97 (1984).
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Jensen 735 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1987
State v. Jensen 735 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1987
State v. Figueroa 737 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Figueroa 737 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
for the proposition that reversible error exists if the prosecution argues a theory of guilt based on acts not charged and the defendant is convicted.
State v. Delk 734 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Delk 734 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
at 2684-85 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 682
State v. Best 703 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Best 703 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
State v. Reidhead 705 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Reidhead 705 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
the court states that an important factor which should be considered when deciding whether the right to confrontation has been satisfied is the importance of the evidence.
State v. Savant 705 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Savant 705 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Bolt 689 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1984
State v. Bolt 689 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1984
We adverted to the problem of “securing” a
State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
State v. Canaday 684 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Canaday 684 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the Arizona Supreme Court adopted a four-prong test to determine the reliability of a co-conspirator statement: “(1) Whether the declaration contained statements of past fact; (2) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the identity and role of the participants in the crime; (3) whether
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
This Court has recently set forth a two-pronged analysis to be used in evaluating confrontation clause claims