Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brita, 761 P.2d 1025.

57 citing documents.

State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
("It is highly undesirable to attempt to resolve issues for the first time on appeal, particularly when the record below was made with no thought in mind of the legal issue to be decided.").
Abdulhussain v. Mv Public Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Abdulhussain v. Mv Public Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”); (“It is highly undesirable to attempt to resolve issues for the first time on appeal, particularly when the record below was made with no thought in mind of the legal issue to be decided.”).
State v. Mayol Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mayol Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(refusing to consider grounds for suppression not raised at suppression hearing); ("It is highly undesirable to attempt to resolve issues for the first time on appeal, particularly when the record below was made with no thought in mind of the legal issue to be decided.").
State v. Story Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Story Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“It is particularly inappropriate to consider an issue for the first time on appeal where the issue is a fact-intensive one.”).
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(refusing to address suppression ruling on an alternative basis not litigated in superior court because hearing “might well have taken a decidedly different twist”); see also Estrella, 230 Ariz. at 404, ¶ 9, n.1 (in the absence of suppression hearing ability to review issue is limited); State v. Johnson, 1
Serah E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Serah E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“It is highly undesirable to attempt to resolve issues for the first time on appeal, particularly when the record below was made with no thought in mind of the legal issue to be decided.”).
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 8 Subsequently, in State v. Cocio , , and State v. Brita , , approved in part, vacated in part on other grounds, , our courts limited the admissibility of blood-draw evidence taken under the implied consent statutes.
Diaz v. Bernini 419 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Diaz v. Bernini 419 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Brita , , 521, , 433 (App. 1987), approved in part, vacated in part on other grounds
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“It is highly undesirable to attempt to resolve issues for the first time on appeal, particularly when the record below was made with no thought in mind of the legal issue to be decided.”).
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(“[Tjhe state, never having presented the issue to the trial court ...
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
4 he argues it is “‘highly undesirable’” for this court “to address issues not decided below,” such as the effect of § 13-716 on his claim.
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 288 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 288 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶9 Boteo-Flores, however, which held that it is inappropriate for appellate courts to consider fact-intensive issues raised for the first time on appeal.
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(refusing to address suppression ruling on alternative basis not expressly litigated below because suppression hearing "might well have taken a decidedly different twist”); 583 , 1357 (App.1990) (declining invitation
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 266 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 266 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
n.2 & n.6, n.2, 593 n.6 (App. 2007); 583, 1357 (App. 1990) (reversing order denying defendant‟s m
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
see Collins, 158 Ariz. at 146 , 761 P.2d at 1050 (construing § 28-691(D) so that “blood taken solely as a result of a search warrant after the defendant has refused to submit to the taking of a blood sample is inadmissible.”); , (narrowly limiting the scope of then § 28-692(m)); , (same).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
approved in part and vacated in part, P.2d 1025 (1988) (“defendant’s blood was not part of a sample taken for medical reasons in accordance with [former] A.R.S.
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
(stating that it is improper for an appellate court to consider an issue for the first time on appeal).
State v. Sorkhabi 46 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Sorkhabi 46 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See, , (state may not raise issue on appeal which it did not raise before the trial court).
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-18 , -30 (App. 1987), aff'd in part and vacated in part
State v. Rogers 924 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1996
State v. Rogers 924 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1996
(“It is particularly inappropriate to consider an issue for the first time on appeal where the issue is a fact-intensive one.”).
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993