Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 800 P.2d 1240.

42 citing documents.

State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
To show that the admission of pretrial identification testimony violated the defendant’s due process rights, the defendant must establish that “(1) that the circumstances surrounding the pretrial identification ‘created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,’ and (2) the state bore sufficient responsibility for the suggestive pretrial identification.” (citing Simmons v. U.S., 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968)).
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
(finding ten seconds insufficient); State v. (Ronald T.) Williams, (finding approximately five seconds insufficient).
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74, 82-83 (1985) (holding that a defendant's right to a psychiatric evaluation arises if the defendant makes a preliminary showing that sanity at the time of the offense will be a significant factor at trial); (holding that due process clause requires the appointment of a mental health expert only when reasonably necessary following a minimal showing of insanity).
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-40 (1987) (finding evidence sufficient to support pecuniary gain as an aggravating factor when the defendant killed a witness during a home burglary because “[n]o explanation for the killing exists other than that [the victim] was killed because he discovered a burglary in progress”).
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
ixon, ¶ 62, ¶ 56, Dann, 220 Ariz. at 358 ¶ 10, 207 P.3d at 611; ¶ 44, State v. Henry (Henry II), State v. Henry (Henry I)
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
But “the due process clause does not preclude every identification that is arguably unreliable; it precludes identification testimony procured by the state through unduly suggestive pretrial procedures.” accord Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716, 726 (2012) (“The due process check for reliability .
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
132 S. Ct. 716, 730 (2012) (“[T]he Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.”)
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
To establish that the admission of identification testimony violated his due process rights, a defendant must show “that the circumstances surrounding the pretrial identification ‘created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification’ ” and that the state was “sufficiently] responsible[ ] for the suggestive pretrial identification to trigger due process protection.” , (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
720 , 133 L.Ed.2d 673 (1996); Runningeagle, 176 Ariz. at 65 , 859 P.2d at 175
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
967, 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), and that the “state bore sufficient responsibility for the suggestive pretrial identification.”
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
(holding that execution by lethal gas is not cruel and *274 unusual punishment prohibited by either 8th and 14th amendments to United States Constitution or article 2, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution); see also Ariz. Const, art. 22, § 22 (approved by electors in November 3, 1992 gene
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
660 , 116 L.Ed.2d 751 (1991); , cert.
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
(execution by lethal gas not cruel and unusual punishment), cert.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
To determine whether a defendant was denied due process because of an improper pretrial identification procedure, the trial court must determine whether the identification procedure “created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,” and whether “the state bore sufficient responsibility for the suggestive pretrial identification.”