Cited by

STATE v. CASH Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶7 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court limits its review to the facts considered at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s ruling

P. 16.2(b)(1) (state has burden of proving by preponderance of evidence lawfulness of acquisition of evidence at suppression hearing); -68 (1996) (state has burden of persuasion at suppression hearing).

¶11 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court limits its review to the facts considered at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s ruling

waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.’” (quoting Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 154); (same); (same); (similar); (“Defendant did not object to the instruction at trial.

v. KNIGHT Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶14 “In reviewing an order involving a motion to suppress, we review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the order, and will not disturb the trial court's ruling absent ‘clear and manifest error.’” ¶ 9 (2003) ().

Our review of a motion to suppress is limited to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining its ruling

¶12 Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 16.2(b), a defendant who “moves to suppress evidence that the state has obtained under defined circumstances,” bears “the burden of going forward.” State 4

at 81, ¶ 28; (“[E]vidence obtained in objective good faith reliance on a faulty search warrant should not be suppressed.”).

¶18 “In reviewing an order involving a motion to suppress, we review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the order, and will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent ‘clear and manifest error.’” ¶ 9 (2003) ().

at *4, ¶¶ 13–18; –75 (1996) (good-faith exception applies even if the issuing magistrate does not fulfill his or her constitutional duty to inquire into the basis of the complaint before finding probable cause).

P. 16.2(b)(2)(C); –68 (1996).

But “[s]enselessness and helplessness, without more, are ordinarily insufficient to prove heinousness or depravity,” because they are “less probative of the defendant’s state of mind” than are the other factors

–77 (1996) (concluding “that the trial court afforded defendant adequate protection against unfair prejudice” when it offered to give a limiting instruction).

2 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling, and give deference to the trial court’s factual findings.

Thus, a finding of probable cause will be upheld whenever there is a “substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 236-37 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271 (1960), and then United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 577-83 (1971)); (citing Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 728 (1984)).

(concluding that expert 10 STATE V. ESCALANTE-OROZCO Opinion of the Court psychological testimony is “not appropriate .

that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.” , quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 , 104 S.Ct.

–77, 921 (1996) (holding admission of evidence defendant was in arrears for several months in child support obligations proper to establish financial motive for 5 STATE v. MUELLER Decision of the Court murders).