Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Boggs, 185 P.3d 111.

153 citing documents.

State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶7 “We review de novo challenges to admissibility based on the Confrontation Clause.” ¶ 31 (2008).
State v. Singleton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Singleton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
It is well established that “[p]articipation by counsel with a pro se defendant’s express approval is, of course, constitutionally unobjectionable.” McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 182 (1984); ¶ 60 (2008) (citing id.)
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 44 (2008) ("To find a confession involuntary, we must find both coercive police behavior and a causal relation between the coercive behavior and the defendant's overborne will.").
State v. Hamwright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hamwright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 39 (2008) (“Determining veracity and credibility lies within the province of the jury .
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Boggs , , ¶ 44, citing Colorado v. Connelly , 479 U.S. 157 , 165-66, 107 S.Ct.
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 39 (2008) (citations omitted).
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–67, ¶ 20 (App. 2010); see also United States v. Nettles, 476 F.3d 508, 517–18 (7th Cir. 2007) (a confidential informant is not considered a witness when his recorded statements merely provide context to a defendant’s admissions); ¶ 35 (2008) (an interviewer’s videotaped statements during an interrogation were admissible to show context).
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
¶ 39, (“Determining veracity and credibility lies within the province of the jury”); Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12, (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within t
State v. McClain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McClain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 43 (2008) ( ¶ 25 (2006)).
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
A statement was involuntarily made if there was (1) “coercive police behavior” and (2) “a causal relation between the coercive behavior and defendant’s overborne will.” -36, ¶ 44 (2008).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
¶ 81, (acknowledging that an officer’s statements can be admissible to provide context for the suspect’s answers).
State v. Tracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We will not find a statement involuntary unless there exists “both coercive police behavior and a causal relation between the coercive behavior and the defendant’s overborne will.” ¶ 44
State v. Linares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Linares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–36 ¶ 44, – 22 (2008) (“To find a confession involuntary, we must find both coercive police behavior and a causal relation between the coercive behavior and the defendant’s overborne will.”).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The officer’s opinion testimony was unnecessary for the jury to conclude that Johnson lied either at the time of his arrest or when testifying, ¶ 42, 5 ¶13 Further, absent Officer Kimble’s opinion testimony, it is doubtful a reasonable jury would have reached a different result.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
337 ¶¶ 17, 53, 123 (2008) (finding that a capital defendant’s constitutional rights were protected when a special master appointed for the purpose of reviewing the items for relevance reviewed the seized materials and returned any privileged documents to the defendant).
Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
337 ¶¶ 17, 53, 123 (2008) (finding that a capital defendant’s constitutional rights were protected when a special master appointed for the purpose of reviewing the items for relevance reviewed the seized materials and returned any privileged documents to the defendant).
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶28 Although Moran and Lindsey involve child victims of sexual abuse rather than adult victims of domestic violence, those cases are 4 “[O]pinions about witness credibility are nothing more than advice to jurors on how to decide the case.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Krznarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Krznarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 44 (2008) (citing Ellison, 213 at 126, ¶ 25, ).
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶16 A statement is testimonial if it is a “solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” ¶ 56, (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51).
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015