Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Buccini, 810 P.2d 178.

64 citing documents.

State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We review the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 24 (App. 1999), deferring to 8 STATE v. TERMINI Decision of the Court the court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, see, (holding that “a trial court’s finding on whether the affiant deliberately .
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(quoting Stanert, 762 F.2d at 781); –58 (1991) (describing an omission as “material” where “it rendered the affidavit ‘substantially misleading’ and was also necessary to the finding of probable cause”) ( (Cal.
State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State of Arizona v. Tito Rene Scott 530 P.3d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Tito Rene Scott 530 P.3d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
See, (suppressing 27 STATE V. MIXTON Opinion of the Court evidence when a police officer “has deliberately or recklessly made material misstatements and omissions in the original affidavit” and a redrafted affidavit
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“A trial court’s finding on whether the affiant deliberately included misstatements of law or excluded material facts is a factual determination, upheld unless clearly erroneous.”).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
If the affiant either (1) included false or recklessly untrue statements or (2) omitted material information, the court must “redraft the affidavit by deleting the falsehoods and adding the omitted material facts.”
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Gamble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Gamble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The superior court's "finding on whether the affiant deliberately included misstatements of law or excluded material facts is a factual determination, upheld unless 'clearly erroneous.'"
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“A trial court’s finding on whether the affiant deliberately included misstatements of law or excluded material facts is a factual determination, upheld unless clearly erroneous.” 7 STATE v. DEMOCKER Decision of the Court (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
See, STATE V. SISCO Opinion of the Court 556–58, –86 (1991) (holding probable cause absent when officer ignores information material to distinction between criminal and non-criminal activity).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, ¶ 8, but review de novo its determination as to the existence of probable cause
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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 v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 238; (adopting Gates).
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
J O N E S, Judge: ¶1 Defendant Bret Frimmel petitions for special action review of the trial court’s denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), P.2d 178 (1991), to determine the validity of five search warrants.
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Crowley 41 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Crowley 41 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
*87 ¶ 17 Our supreme court’s , further supports our conclusion that Gates did not invalidate Berge .
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
Estate of Shumway v. Gavette 9 P.3d 1062 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Shumway v. Gavette 9 P.3d 1062 Ariz. 2000
-56 , -84 (1991) (probable cause for issuance of search warrant).
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 30 While the ultimate determination of probable cause is a legal issue, which we review de novo, -56 , -84 (1991); Hockett, 139 Ariz. at 320 , 678 P.2d at 505 , it is intensely fact-based, and we must defer to the trial court's superior opportunity to view the witnesses and evaluate the evidence in determining those facts.