Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Castaneda, 724 P.2d 1.

106 citing documents.

State v. Floyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Floyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
photographs are still admissible if relevant because the ‘burden to prove every element of a crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.’” (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69 (1991)), (“While it may be true that the subject-matter of a photograph can be described adequately 5 STATE v. GIEBEL Decision of the Court with words, that is not the test of admissibility.”).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
See State v. Castaneda , , 389, , 8 (1986) ("A third party validly consents to the search" of property when: "(1) the consent is voluntarily given; and (2) the third party has common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or property searched or seized."
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The key issue in harmless error analysis is “whether there is overwhelming additional evidence sufficient to establish the prosecution’s case.” ( -89 (1983)).
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
( ); ¶¶ 14-15, (finding persuasive the “significant number of cases” holding that a driver of a vehicle may consent to its search even if the owne
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, (holding that photographs of stab wounds in the victim’s chest and the victim’s nude body smeared with blood were properly admitted); (holding that a photograph of a victim’s fully clothed body lying face down was not gruesome, a
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 whether “the subject-matter of a photograph can be described with words” “is not the test of admissibility.”
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, (holding that photographs of stab wounds in the victim’s chest and the victim’s nude body smeared with blood were properly admitted); (holding that a photograph of a victim’s fully clothed body lying face down was not gruesome, a
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶20 Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence that the State can show by a preponderance of the evidence “would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984); (recognizing the inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona).
State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denz 306 P.3d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denz 306 P.3d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
-29, -73 (1983); (“I have nothing to say” invoked right to remain silent.); -62 ¶ 5, -27 (App. 2008) (“I ain’t got nothin’ to say” invoked Fifth Amendment rights.); Strayhand, 184 Ariz. at 585, 911 P.2d at 591 (“‘Well I don’t want [to] answer anymore,’
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(statement “I have nothing to say” invoked right to remain silent); Szpyrka, , 202 P.3d at 526-27 (statement “I ain’t got nothin’ to say” unambiguous invocation of Fifth Amendment rights); , (statement “We
State of Arizona v. Steven Dwayne Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Steven Dwayne Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
373, 1327 (1988) (defendant twice asserted he did not want to answer more questions); (“I have nothing to say” invoked right to remain silent); Strayhand, 184 Ariz. at 585, 911 P.2d at 591 4 (defendant’s statement “‘Well I don’t want [to] answer anymore,’ could not have been clearer” invocation of Fifth Amendment rights); se
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(evidence of location of victim’s body admissible despite coercion in obtaining location because it would have been discovered at first light).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382, 389
State v. Lopez 10 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Lopez 10 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
For this mitigating circumstance to exist, “one person must coerce or induce another person to do something against his will.”
Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958)); see also
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Bentlage 961 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Bentlage 961 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
“[I]f it reasonably appeared that a third party had common authority over the premises, then the consent to search would be valid.”
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Branham 952 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Branham 952 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997