Cited by

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

200 citing documents.

State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In evaluating such claims, courts weigh (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.” ¶ 9 (2013) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972)).
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 55, (citing Prion, 203 Ariz. at 161-62, ¶¶ 19-27, 52 P.3d at 193-94; Gibson, 202 Ariz. at 323-24, ¶¶ 11-19, 44 P.3d at 1003-04).
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Midland v. Van Slyke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Midland v. Van Slyke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
3 MIDLAND v. VAN SLYKE Decision of the Court ¶7 — a criminal case in which the defendant challenged the admission of evidence about transactions occurring on the murder victim’s Capital One account.
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cach v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cach v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Acarta v. Partridge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Acarta v. Partridge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cir. 1999); -02, ¶ 33 (2013) (stating that documents are admissible as adoptive business records when a business “regularly relies on the information that third parties submit as part of their ordinary course of business”.)
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Alaniz-Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Alaniz-Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 78, (reviewing denial of motion to vacate judgment of guilt for abuse of discretion).
State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 38, (Confrontation Clause “bars admission of out of court testimonial evidence,” such as affidavits, “unless the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.”).
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
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 44, (“[T]here must be evidence of flight from which can be inferred a consciousness of guilt for the crime charged.”) ( ).
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
It is established that “[n]o Arizona case has required a third-party culpability instruction” because “the substance of the instruction [is] adequately covered” by the instructions “on the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the crimes charged.” ¶¶ 55-56
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
But he never asked the trial court to delete the inapplicable language, and the court had “no duty to parse the proposed instruction for the accurate portions.” ¶ 54
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
¶8 “The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial protects a defendant’s right to be brought to trial without undue delay.” ¶ 9, see also U.S. Const. amend VI.
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶¶ 9, 16, 62 (2013), quoting Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532 (1972).
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
In the video, Orel states his intention in granting the interview is to “clear everything out.” His words thus acknowledge a testimonial intent and reflect that he “‘would reasonably expect [his pretrial statements] to be used prosecutorially.’” -66 (2013), quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51.
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
On a motion for a judgment of acquittal “‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, ¶ 70, (emphasis omitted), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
13 STATE V. MEDINA Opinion of the Court ¶54 “The Confrontation Clause bars admission of out of court testimonial evidence unless the defense has had an opportunity to cross- examine the declarant.” ¶ 38, (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004)).