Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fulminante, 778 P.2d 602.

177 citing documents.

State v. Davitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Davitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Deng, 1 CA-CR 15-0638, at *3, ¶ 12 (“[defendant] was not entitled to Miranda warnings because during the phone call he was not in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action.”); (noting pre-indictment questioning does not trigger the Sixth Amendment right to counsel).
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Bigger, 227 Ariz. at 209, ¶ 43 ().
State v. Dominick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dominick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
This burden is met if the State demonstrates that “there is overwhelming 3 STATE v. DOMINICK Decision of the Court additional evidence sufficient to establish the prosecution’s case.” aff’d, 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(holding voluntary confession admissible if the taint of prior constitutional violation sufficiently attenuated).
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-46 (1988) (holding that the admission of evidence is harmless when it is cumulative to and consistent with other properly admitted evidence); Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
–49 (1988) (finding no error where defense counsel strategically stipulated to admission of defendant’s prior convictions), aff’d, 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
State v. Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-49, -14 (1988) (finding no error where defense counsel strategically stipulated to admission of the defendant’s prior convictions), aff’d, 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The key issue in harmless error analysis is “whether there is overwhelming additional evidence sufficient to establish the prosecution’s case.” ( -89 (1983)).
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“The sixth amendment does not attach during pre-indictment questioning.”).5 4 Before a confession is received in evidence, “the trial judge shall .
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres MacIel 375 P.3d 938 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres MacIel 375 P.3d 938 Ariz. 2016
(quoting Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. at 373, 674 P.2d at 1371).
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Alvarez did not offer a valid third-party culpability defense and we conclude the evidence is “no more than ‘[v]ague grounds of suspicion.’” , , (alteration in Bigger).
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
The proffered evidence constitutes no more than “[v]ague grounds of suspicion.”
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
see also Carreon, 210 Ariz. at 76 ¶ 122, 107 P.3d at 922.
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
does not need to be conscious for each and every wound inflicted,” ¶ 7, (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), the (F)(6) aggravator cannot be found if the evidence on consciousness is inconclusive
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“[T]he trial court instructed the jury on the issue of voluntariness, but failed to instruct the jury on whether Anthony Sarivola was a law enforcement officer and it is not clear whether the jury understood Sarivola [a paid FBI informant] to be a ‘law enforcement officer’.
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
Rejected by State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 258
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
This court rejected this argument in State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 258