Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cocio, 709 P.2d 1336.

90 citing documents.

State v. Pry 562 P.3d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Pry 562 P.3d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390 (1798); Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 532- 33 (2013); (“[T]he Arizona Legislature may not enact a law which imposes any additional or increased penalty for a crime after its commission.”).
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“The determination of whether to excuse a juror for cause is within the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.” –80 (1985), ¶ 11 (2017).
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 8 Subsequently, in State v. Cocio , , and State v. Brita , , approved in part, vacated in part on other grounds, , our courts limited the admissibility of blood-draw evidence taken under the implied consent statutes.
Diaz v. Van Wie 426 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Diaz v. Van Wie 426 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
286, , 1345 (1985) (citing Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct.
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
we held that a formal arrest was not necessary for police to obtain a blood sample from a DUI suspect drawn by medical personnel for treatment purposes.
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In State v, Codo, , our supreme court concluded that exigent circumstances existed, for purposes of the medical blood draw exception to the warrant requirement, given that ”[t]he highly evanescent nature of alcohol in the defendant’s blood stream guaranteed that the alcohol would dissipate over a relati
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
-84, -45 (1985), our supreme court considered whether the predecessor statute to § 28-1388 violated the constitution.
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The Arizona Supreme Court has restricted the “for any reason” language "to mean that the blood must be drawn by medical personnel for any medical reason.” , (construing statutory predecessor).
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 28-1388(E) (allowing law enforcement officer with probable cause to take portion of blood sample collected by another); -84, -45 (1985) (noting U.S. Supreme Court has held “a blood sample may be taken without a search warrant if it is taken in a medically approved manner and based on probable cause to believe the person is intoxicated”).
Carrillo v. Houser 232 P.3d 1245 Ariz. 2010
Carrillo v. Houser 232 P.3d 1245 Ariz. 2010
§ 28- 1388(E) (2004); -87, -46 (1985) (interpreting this provision).
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
State v. Quinn 178 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Quinn 178 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 12 , see Collins, 158 Ariz. at 146 , 761 P.2d at 1050 (construing § 28-691(D) so that “blood taken solely as a result of a search warrant after the defendant has refused to submit to the taking of a blood sample is inadmissible.”); , (narrowly limiting the scope of then § 28-692(m)); , (same).
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-84, -45 (1985); see also State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287, ¶ 11
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Our supreme court has clarified the “for any reason” language of § 28-1388(E) to mean that the blood must be drawn by medical personnel for “medical purposes.”
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(upholding mandatory life sentence for defendant convicted of felony involving use of deadly weapon or dangerous instrument while on probation for prior felony conviction); , (same); , (legislature may alter penalty for future crimes).
State v. Newton 21 P.3d 387 Ariz. 2001
State v. Newton 21 P.3d 387 Ariz. 2001
Just as the legislature can make more severe the effect of committing a crime while on release status, , so can the legislature make less severe the impact of committing a crime while on release status.
State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See State v. Codo, 147 Ariz., 277, 284
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 14 The Arizona Supreme Court has examined police use of a blood sample obtained pursuant to statute, for medical purposes
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
1597 , 1602 n. 2, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995); , (“[T]he Arizona Legislature may not enact a law which imposes any additional or increased penalty for a crime after its commission.”).
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
Allstate Insurance v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Allstate Insurance v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See, , (Feldman, J., dissenting) (“The facts of this case illustrate clearly that in a predictable number of cases mandatory sentencing covering a broad range of crimes is simply a form of mandatory injustice.”).
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
section 28-692(M) (1989)
State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993