Cited by

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

382 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Inevitable Discovery ¶23 Although we conclude the evidence found in Snyder’s backpack was obtained as the result of an unlawful search, “[i]llegally obtained physical evidence may be admitted if the State can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984).
State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples 378 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples 378 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2016
See Olson, 495 U.S. at 96–97 (“Olson’s status as an overnight guest is alone enough to show that he had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”); ¶ 24, (“Article 2, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution, as well, protects the right to privacy in temporary residences.”).
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(quoting Kannankeril v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 809 (3d Cir. 1997)); ¶ 70 (2004) ("The degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility.").
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
In determining whether substantial evidence supports a conviction, we consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, id., and resolve all inferences against the defendant, ¶ 87
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Juror misconduct requires a new trial only if the defendant proves actual prejudice or “if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” ¶ 12 (2012) ( ¶ 58 (2004)).
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 29 (2004) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)).
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 Substantial evidence to support a conviction is evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87 (2004); see also West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16.
EMILY ANN McGUIRE v. STATE OF ARIZONA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
EMILY ANN McGUIRE v. STATE OF ARIZONA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
¶ 37, (“The State cannot claim inevitable discovery and thereupon be excused from all constitutional requirements.
Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
204 ¶ 37, (“The State cannot claim inevitable discovery and thereupon be excused from all constitutional requirements.
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 60, (reviewing the admission of photographs and videotape); ¶ 5, (reviewing the admission of text messages over a hearsay objection); (reviewing the pre
State v. Welch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Welch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
11 STATE v. QUIMAYOUSIE Decision of the Court ¶30 Juror misconduct requires a new trial only if the defendant proves actual prejudice or “if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” ¶ 12, ( ¶ 58, ).
State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶8 Generally, the trial court has broad discretion over courtroom security measures, ¶ 118 (2008) and we uphold its security measures when they are supported by the record, ¶ 84 (2004).
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“If an expert meets the ‘liberal minimum qualifications,’ her level of expertise goes to credibility and weight, not admissibility.” Id.; see also State 7 ¶ 70 (2004) (“The degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility.”).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A judgment of acquittal may be entered only if “no substantial evidence supports the convictions.” ¶ 87 (2004); see Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 A court must enter judgment of acquittal “if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 87 (2004) (citing Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The trial court may enter a judgment of acquittal only if “no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 87
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶11 “Juror misconduct warrants a new trial only if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” ¶ 58, (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).