Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blackmore, 925 P.2d 1347.

127 citing documents.

State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Cash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
2 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
State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶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
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
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
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We “restrict our review to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing,” and will affirm the court’s ruling if it was legally correct for any reason, ¶ 19 (App. 2016).
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
1 Because the superior court’s denials of two suppression motions are the only issues raised on appeal, “[w]e restrict our review to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing[s],” viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s suppression orders, ¶ 5 (2019).
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
This court only considers the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing, and the superior court determines the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We “restrict our review to consideration of the facts the [] court heard at the suppression hearing,” and will affirm [the] court’s ruling if it was legally correct for any reason, ¶ 19 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“We restrict our review to only those facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing.”).
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We defer to a superior court's factual findings absent clear error, considering only the facts presented at the suppression hearing
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
said “some of the focus was on the genitalia of the children.” (stating that when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review only the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing).
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“We restrict our view to consideration of the facts the [superior] court heard at the suppression hearing.”
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶6 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review only the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing, and view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Walters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Walters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 5 (App. 2008) (reasonable suspicion); (probable cause).
State v. Ribble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ribble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We restrict our view to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing.”
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶26 Our review on appeal is limited to the evidence considered by the superior court at the suppression hearing, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s ruling.
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence purportedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we review only the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing, and we view those facts in the manner most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling.
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
4 STATE v. DUGAN Decision of the Court In reviewing that ruling, we limit our review to the evidence before the superior court at the time of the suppression hearing, and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the ruling.