Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hyde, 921 P.2d 655.

199 citing documents.

State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” in particular when “‘the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’” quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 443, 447 (1974).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
(“An expert may not give an opinion as to the accuracy, reliability, or truthfulness of a [party].”); see also United States v. Ganadonegro, 805 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1212 (D.N.M.
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(internal citation omitted).
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, this court limits the review to the facts the superior court considered at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s ruling
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
The jury may find this aggravator only “if the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.” ¶ 11, ( ).
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
To prove this aggravator, the state must show that “the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 280
State v. Bouck 241 P.3d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Bouck 241 P.3d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
105 (requiring that, upon request, a trial court give a limiting instruction when evidence is admissible for one purpose but not another); -77, -80 (1996) (stating that an offer to issue limiting 9 instruction “afforded the defendant adequate protection against unfair prejudice”).