Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Flower, 778 P.2d 1179.

30 citing documents.

State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
to more than one interpretation, the limit of permissible continuing interrogation immediately after the assertion would be for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether the defendant intended to invoke his right to silence.” (“[B]y failing to at least clarify [the defendant’s] intent, [the detective] did not ‘scrupulously honor’ [the defendant’s] right to silence, and the entire statement was inadmissible as a violation of Miranda.”).
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Weekley 27 P.3d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Weekley 27 P.3d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).
State v. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(in reviewing denial of motion to suppress, appellate court may only consider evidence presented to trial court during suppression hearing); , 286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989) (same).
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).
State v. Blackmore 925 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1996
State v. Blackmore 925 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1996
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).
State v. Blackmore 904 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Blackmore 904 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).
State v. Moore 901 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Moore 901 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
We look only to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, , and we view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling, -87 , -39 (App.1990).
State v. Thornton 837 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Thornton 837 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
However, , where the officers conceded that they had violated the defendant’s right to counsel after the defendant had requested an attorney.
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(defendant’s silence following Miranda warning created ambiguity which permitted only questions to clarify his intent); , (“I ain’t going to say any more,” if an ambiguous assertion of right to remain silent, permitted only clarifying question
State v. Mada 812 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Mada 812 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989).