Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Huerstel, 75 P.3d 698.

68 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
404(b); ¶ 69, (testimony about defendant’s stated plans to rob store on weekend of murders was not evidence of his conduct, and therefore not subject to Rule 404(b)), -48 ¶¶ 52-57, - 36 (2001) (appl
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
34, ¶ 35 , 185 P.3d at 120 (noting interviewer’s videotaped statements during interrogation were admissible to show context of interrogation); see also U.S. v. Nettles, 476 F.3d 508, 517-18 (7th Cir.2007) (confidential informant not a “witness” for Confrontation Clause purposes because his recorded statements merely provided context to defendant’s recorded admissions); ¶ 65 , (“[Jjuries that are permitted to hear taped confessions are also permitted to hear the questions police ask.”).
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
In determining whether an abuse has occurred and whether the abuse coerced the jury’s verdict, we examine “the actions of the judge and the comments made to the jury based on the totality of the circumstances and attempt[] to determine if the independent judgment of the jury was displaced.” ¶ 5
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
¶112 “In determining whether a trial court has coerced the jury’s verdict,” we examine the judge’s actions and instructions in light of the “totality of the circumstances and attempt[] to determine if the independent judgment of the jury was - 35 - displaced.” ¶ 5
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 17, 101, ¶ 25 , 706 (2003) (reversing on the basis of coercion, in part because the trial court erred in giving an impasse instruction before the jury indicated it had reached an impasse).
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
What is my moral position on that circumstance.” - 25 - Ariz. 93, 97, ¶ 5
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
-07 , -15 (App.1991); , (hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause are not the same and serve different purposes).
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
10 ¶¶ 40, 42, 709 (2003) (citations omitted); see also State v. Sego, 629 A.2d 1362, 1366-67 (N.J.
In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
ence of the child’s parents or their consent to a waiver of rights is only one of the elements to be considered by the trial court in determining that the statement was voluntary and the child intelligently comprehended his rights.” see also State v. Huerstel, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 52, (“[T]he absence of a parent during the questioning of a juvenile does not itself render a confession involuntary, rather it is considered as a factor in the totality of the circumstances analysis.”).