Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Miller, 921 P.2d 1151.

36 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(“issuance of the search warrant authorized” police to detain suspect “while the warrant was being executed,” even without probable cause).
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
328 (1996) (affirming defendant’s death penalty despite the presence of a plea agreement offer for a life sentence that the defendant rejected).
State v. Peterman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Peterman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-21 (1996) (identifying an officer’s statement that the defendant was free to leave as an intervening event).
State v. Hummons 253 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2011
State v. Hummons 253 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2011
See, ¶ 14, (applying attenuation doctrine to consent search following allegedly illegal search); -35, -52 (1996) (upholding search following allegedly illegal arrest); -21, -58 (1996) (upholding admission of statements made after illegal arrest).
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
at ¶¶ 37-42, 185 P.3d at 120-21 ; see also *346 , (holding detective’s statement not hearsay because not offered for substantive content but to show effect on defendant during interrogation); , (Statements made to an accused during interrogation are not objectionable as hearsay bec
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
(finding questions not offered for truth but to establish fact of questioning); (finding questions offered only for their effect on the hearer); (finding questi
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
(attempt to resist does not preclude finding of helplessness).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(attempt to resist does not preclude finding of helplessness).
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
5 , (defendant “decided to talk, not because the police illegally transported him to the police station, but because he thought he might be able to escape criminal liability”).
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
substance abuse problems insufficient to establish the (G)(1) mitigator); , (insufficient evidence to show methamphetamine use impaired conduct on the day of the murder); , (expert testimony conflicted with respect to mental illness; (G)(1) not established); , (defendant’s ability to drive after the murder discredited any assertion that intoxication existed to establish (G)(1) mitigator); -95 , -28 (1996) (self-reported use of cocaine on day of murder not enough to establish (G)(1) mitiga
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
See, , cert, denied, Miller v. Arizona, -U.S.-, 117 S.Ct.
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997