Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rodriguez, 921 P.2d 643.

72 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
Stoney v. Stoney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Stoney v. Stoney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(explaining that absent abuse of discretion, reviewing courts will not “‘second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.’”) ().
State v. Rohrer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rohrer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
DISCUSSION ¶7 “Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State of Arizona v. Chris Thomas Gomez 482 P.3d 397 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Chris Thomas Gomez 482 P.3d 397 Ariz. 2021
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Davolt , , ¶ 87, (alteration in Rodriguez ) (quoting State v. Rodriguez , , 245, , 648 (1996) ).
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶22 “Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State v. Stelmasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelmasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”) (internal citations omitted).
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We need not address this issue, however, because the subsequent probation search was valid, and the evidence obtained therein was properly admitted against Smith.2 ¶12 “We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress absent clear and manifest error.” (internal citation omitted).
State v. Gipson 277 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2012
State v. Gipson 277 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2012
in which we said that “[a] defendant should not have a lesser included instruction forced upon him,” in 3 which we said that “[i]f [the defendant] objects, the instruction should not be given.” ¶8 Krone and Rodriguez, however, were capital cases.
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
The state has not argued any error in this respect was harmless, , (state's failure to argue harmless error concedes point), nor would we necessarily find it so given the state's burden to prove the requisite mental state.
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Our supreme court has held that “all references to polygraph tests, absent stipulation, are inadmissible for any purpose in Arizona.”
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ultimately, “[i]f reasonable [persons] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” , (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
simply reviews the remainder of the evidence against the defendant to determine whether the admission of the confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1265 (1991); ¶¶ 17-18
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
7 “[AJbsent a clear abuse of discretion” by the trial court, we will not “second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.” , ( , ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
“If reasonable [persons] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.”
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003