Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker, 296 P.3d 54.

200 citing documents.

State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 44 (2013); ¶ 60 (2005).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Parker , , ¶¶ 67-68, (argument improper if it "could also be interpreted" as comment on defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights).
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶25 “The Confrontation Clause bars admission of out of court testimonial evidence unless the defense has had an opportunity to cross- examine the declarant.” ¶ 38 (2013) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004)).
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 61 (2013) (finding that a defendant's stipulation to admit evidence "preclude[d] him from asserting on appeal that [the] admission was error"); -66, ¶¶ 8-9, 15 (2001) (refusing to consider claims of error in a jury instruction when the trial court gave the instruction
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State v. Garza , , 64 ¶ 25, ,1014 (2007) ; see also State v. Parker , , 400 ¶ 21, , 63 (2013) ("We have repeatedly rejected invitations to expand Morgan 's holding.").
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-04, ¶¶ 43-50 (2013) (flight instruction warranted when defendant left 4 STATE v. HARRIS Decision of the Court home and, over the course of 18 days, went to Mexico and used a false name, then went to California and
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The Confrontation Clause thus bars admission of testimonial hearsay statements “unless the defense has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.” ¶ 38 (2013).
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 61 (2013) (“Parker’s stipulation to admit the videotaped interviews precludes him from asserting on appeal that their admission was error.”); ¶ 50 (2007) (defense counsel invited error in admission of evidence by explicitly stating that he did not object and by agre
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 38 (2013) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004)).
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Haver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Haver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶28 “We review issues of constitutional law de novo, and related factual determinations for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 8 (2013).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“The Confrontation Clause bars admission of out of court testimonial evidence unless the defense has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.” ¶ 38 (2013) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004)).
State v. Sagarnaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sagarnaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶24 “The Confrontation Clause bars admission of out of court testimonial evidence unless the defense has had an opportunity to cross- examine the declarant.” ¶ 38 (2013) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004)).
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
But, “courts regularly admit business records even when the testifying witness did not assemble the complete record.” ¶ 33 (2013) (citations omitted).