Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Efren Medina, 306 P.3d 48.

73 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
ted jurors or to clarify which factors were given more weight in the choice to strike,” and “the trial court did not have an opportunity to conduct an in-depth comparison of the jurors who were stricken and those 13 STATE V. ESCALANTE-OROZCO Opinion of the Court who remained on the panel.” ¶ 49
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially.’” Id., (alteration in Ortiz).
State v. Makel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Makel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
05, ¶¶ 48, 49, 62 (2013) (noting that a comparison of jurors based on a cold record may be misleading when alleged similarities were not raised at trial and, as a result, “[w]e decline to examine more detailed comparisons than were alleged at trial.”) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially.’” quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51.
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Michigan v. Bryant, – U.S. –, 131 S. Ct. 1143, 1167 (2011) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 840 (2006) (Thomas, J., concurring in part)); ¶ 63
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See id.; ¶¶ 62-63, -64 (2013) (autopsy report not testimonial).
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Murrietta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Murrietta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See Michigan v. Bryant, ___ U.S. ___, ___ n.3, 131 S. Ct. 1143, 1155 n.3 (2011) (reserving ruling on testimonial character of statements to private parties); (observing Williams v. Illinois, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012), supplies “no binding rule for determining” what is testimonial); n.5, n.5 (App. 2012) (describing federal precedents as “choppy waters”).
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
¶9 Reeves’s P.3d 48 (2013).