Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lacy, 929 P.2d 1288.

63 citing documents.

State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
a statement by an officer that he could not promise the defendant anything was sufficient to qualify previous suggestions that a deal might be reached.
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
C. Harmless Error ¶ 15 Although the court erred in admitting the hearsay videotaped statement, we need not reverse unless there is a “reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.”
State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(fact that several months had passed between alleged promise and defendant’s statement contradicted reliance); -80 , -26 (1989), aff'd 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State ex rel. Berning v. Davis 953 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State ex rel. Berning v. Davis 953 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In June 1997, Daniels filed a motion to dismiss the charges, which the city magistrate granted, without prejudice
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
See, , (when medical testimony did not establish which of three shots was fatal, court could not determine if injuries were inflicted beyond those necessary to cause death).
State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Medina 949 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Medina 949 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(“Moreover, even in cases where an accused experiences some prejudice from a lapse of time, prosecutions fol *422 lowing investigative delays do not necessarily offend due process.”)
State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(“Moreover, even in cases where an accused experiences some prejudice from a lapse of time, prosecutions following investigative delays do not necessarily offend due process.”); , -98