Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner, 280 P.3d 604.

143 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
Goudeau “cannot show such prejudice because the trial court instructed the jurors to consider each charged offense separately and advised them that the State had to prove each beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 48
Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
I. BACKGROUND 2 BROWN V. MCCLENNEN (STATE) Opinion of the Court ¶4 In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress, we consider only “evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” ¶ 23
Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
I. BACKGROUND ¶ 4 In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress, we consider only “evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” , 70 ¶ 23
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
I. BACKGROUND ¶ 3 In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress, we consider only “evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” , 70 ¶ 23
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 60 (2012) ( ¶ 15 (App. 2007)).
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Because trial courts must be able to limit the presentation of witnesses and other evidence on collateral issues, only rarely will a trial court abuse its discretion in denying surrebuttal.” –80 ¶ 82, –24 (2012).
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 71 (2012) (court did not clearly abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s bisexuality where defendant placed his bisexuality at issue); ¶ 25 (App. 2009) (when party “opens the door” to otherwise objectionable testimony there is no error as long as r
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
A common scheme or plan, under Rule 13.3(a)(3), is a “particular plan of which the charged crime is a part.” ¶ 45, ( ).
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-86, ¶¶ 116-22, -30 (2012).
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
at 426; ¶ 20, Moody, 208 Ariz. at 450 ¶ 88, 94 P.3d at 1145.
State v. Joe 316 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Joe 316 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Accordingly, a “claimed inability to recall, when disbelieved by the trial judge, may be viewed as inconsistent with previous statements.” ¶ 58 , ( , ).
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
¶ 43, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
“We review constitutional issues de novo, and, when possible, construe statutes to uphold their constitutionality.” ¶ 99
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
Trial courts presume confessions to be involuntary, but we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 23
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
Allred enumerated five factors to consider when assessing whether Rule 403 should bar admission of a prior inconsistent statement for 4 “A claimed inability to recall, when disbelieved by the trial judge, may be viewed as inconsistent with previous statements.” ¶ 58
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B. 302 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B. 302 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012