Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tapia, 767 P.2d 5.

56 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
However, “[a]nswering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings constitutes a waiver [of these rights] by conduct.” (); see also Berghuis, 9 STATE V. MELENDEZ Opinion of the Court 560 U.S. at 385 (“As a general proposition, the law can presume that an individual who, with a full understanding of his or her rights, acts in a ma
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 10 (App. 2007) (“[W]e do not impose our own determination as to the credibility of witnesses” and defer to the superior court since it “is in the best position to make that determination.”).
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Answering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings” may constitute “waiver by conduct.”
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
in scope, this general principle does not preclude law enforcement officers from “offer[ing] to tell the prosecutor about the defendant’s cooperation and suggest[ing] that such cooperation may increase the likelihood of a more lenient sentence” so long as the offer “is couched in terms of a mere possibility or an opinion.” Strayhand, 184 Ariz. at 579 (quotation omitted); (“[U]nder some circumstances, direct promises that officers would tell the prosecutor if 7 STATE v. DANN Decision of the Court
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“Voluntariness and Miranda are two separate inquiries.”).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
(“The necessity of giving Miranda warnings relates to the admissibility of a confession based upon defendant’s being apprised of his right to counsel and waiving that 11 STATE V. ESCALANTE-OROZCO Opinion o
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
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
the State has made a reasonable 3 We emphasize that our decision here “does not foreclose consideration of the particular suspect‟s knowledge based, for example, upon his prior contacts with the police, when the issue is whether the warnings given were understood by him.” 2 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 6.8(a), at 571-72 (2d ed. 1999); see
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
statements [made to police officers] are admissible.” (“Answering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings constitutes a waiver by conduct.”).
State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶ 4 “ ‘Answering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings constitutes a waiver by conduct.’ ” State v. Tros *352 tle, , , see also North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
To be deemed voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a statement or confession must not have been induced by any “direct or implied promises, however slight,” , “nor by the exertion of any improper influence” or physical threats.
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
“Answering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings constitutes a waiver by conduct.”
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Because “courts will tolerate some form of police gamesmanship so long as the games do not overcome a suspect’s will and induce a confession not truly voluntary,” , the misrepresentations are not per se impermissible.
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
It therefore permitted the confession to be used as evidence, , and it is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court as the defendant wishes.
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
660 , 116 L.Ed.2d 751 (1991) (Miranda and voluntariness are two separate issues); , (same).