Cited by

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

90 citing documents.

State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
at 390 ; , (“the Arizona Legislature may not enact a law which imposes any additional or increased penalty for a crime after its commission”).
State v. Morales 824 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Morales 824 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
In State v. Santeyan, supra, , the privilege was held to have been violated by the admission of results of tests the hospital had performed.
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
“[EJxigent circumstances can justify a search based on probable cause when imminent destruction of evidence is likely and the intrusion is minimal.”
State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, , (manslaughter); , (second degree murder); , (negligent homicide); , (aggravated assault).
State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
§ 28-692(A) or (B), 2) exigent circumstances are present and, 3) the blood is drawn for medical purposes by medical personnel.”
State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Under Arizona law, however, proximate cause may be interrupted where another cause “with which the defendant was in no way connected intervenes, and but for which death would not have occurred.” , Wiley 144 Ariz. at 540 , 698 P.2d at 1259
State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
(§ 13-604.02, armed robbery and aggravated assault); , (§ 13-604.01, sexual assault); , (§ 13-604.01, manslaughter); , (§ 13-604.01, armed robbery); , (§ 13-604.01, accomplice to armed robbery); , (§ 13-604,01, burglary and ass
State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
§ 28-692(A) or (B), (2) exigent circumstances are present and, (3) the blood is drawn for medical purposes by medical personnel.”
State v. Orduno 769 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1989
State v. Orduno 769 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1989
See, , (second degree murder); , (manslaughter); , (second degree murder); , (aggravated assault).
Collins v. Superior Court 761 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1988
Collins v. Superior Court 761 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1988
State v. Brita 761 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1988
State v. Brita 761 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1988
The court of appeals then discussed this court’s
State v. Weatherbee 762 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Weatherbee 762 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
Day, 148 Ariz. at 498 , 715 P.2d at 751
State v. Brita 744 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Brita 744 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
§ 13-3925(A), which creates a good faith exception to the rule excluding evidence unlawfully obtained
State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
In advancing this contention the state relies on authorities dealing with the application of the ex post facto doctrine