Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davolt, 84 P.3d 456.

373 citing documents.

State v. Torrance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A trial court should enter a judgment of acquittal “if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 87 (2004).
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
He has knowledge, education and experience beyond the ken of lay jurors related to “how humans process information, warnings, and instructions.” ¶ 70 (2004) (“The test of whether a person is an expert is whether a jury can receive help on a particular subject from the witness.”).
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Achenbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Achenbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Byers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Byers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87 (2004) (citing Rule 20).
State v. Brandeberry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brandeberry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87 (2004) (citing Rule 20).
State v. Havatone 443 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Havatone 443 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See State v. Davolt , , 201-05, ¶¶ 21-34, , 466-67 (2004) (applying Arizona and federal law to a search conducted in California); State v. Anderson , , 326, ¶ 34, , 381 (2000) (declining to apply Arizona initial appearance rule to time spent in custody in Illinois).
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Davolt , , ¶ 87
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
An expert’s “degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility.” ¶ 70 (2004).
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, Adair , , ¶ 9, , but review de novo the court's ultimate legal determination whether the search complied with the Fourth Amendment, State v. Davolt , , ¶ 21
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Davolt , , ¶ 87, (alteration in Rodriguez ) (quoting State v. Rodriguez , , 245, , 648 (1996) ).
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Substantial evidence, which “is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt,” ¶ 87 (2004) (citing Rule 20), must prove each element of the offense, McCurdy, 216 Ariz. at 573, ¶ 14.
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Davolt , , ¶ 66, , 474 (2004) ; State v. Pina-Barajas , , ¶ 4, , 475 (App. 2018).
Thomas M. v. Danette G., G.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thomas M. v. Danette G., G.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alice M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 39 (2004)); see also J & B Motors, (exclusion of admissible evidence is not reversible error if in all probability its admission would not have changed the result).
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 70 (2004) (citation omitted).
State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
He “crept up behind” her inside the freezer and hit her on the back of the head with “something blunt.” Regina became 1 “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and we resolve all inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 87 (2004).
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 6 (2015); ¶ 21 (2004).
Rasor v. Nw. Hosp. LLC 419 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018