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. Winegar, 711 P.2d 579.

76 citing documents.

  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT30243 920 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT30243 920 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    1870 , 1875 n. 5, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (“[T]he correctness of the legal characterization of the facts appearing in the record is a matter for this Court to determine.”); , (“Although the trial court must establish the facts underlying a warrantless arrest determination, the ultimate legal conclusion is properly addressed by the appellate as well as the trial courts.”).
  • State v. Blackmore 904 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Blackmore 904 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Whether an investigative detention has transformed into a de facto arrest “turns upon an evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would reasonably believe that he was being arrested.” , , (whether a person is under arrest depends on the “particular circumstances” surrounding the detention); Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    675 , 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985), , Adams, 407 U.S. at 146 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Monge 842 P.2d 1292 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Monge 842 P.2d 1292 Ariz. 1992
    2815 , 115 L.Ed.2d 987 (1991); , 444-45 nn.
  • State v. Rowland 836 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Rowland 836 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    When determining if an arrest has occurred, the trial court’s legal conclusions “are especially susceptible of appellate review.”
  • State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    The defendant must show that his statements “were obtained by exploitation of the illegality of his arrest.” , citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S.Ct.
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
    : An error is harmless only if no reasonable probability exists that the verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.
  • State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); , (CAMERON, J„ specially concurring).
  • State v. Clevidence 736 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Clevidence 736 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Judgment must be rendered absent a bright line rule and, as our supreme court recently stated, “we will not attempt to delineate the precise moment at which a valid Terry stop is transformed into an arrest.” , , 586 n. 5 (1985).
  • State v. Crotty 731 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Crotty 731 P.2d 629 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. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986