Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sharp, 973 P.2d 1171.

38 citing documents.

Redding v. Southeast Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Redding v. Southeast Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 19 (1999) (citations omitted); U.S. Const. Amend.
State v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144 ¶ 29 (error is prejudicial if it “deprived [the defendant] of the opportunity for the jury to render a verdict” untainted by the asserted misconduct); ¶ 60 (App. 2019) (improper arguments made repeatedly were prejudicial); ¶ 23 (1999) (no prejudice when prosecution did not emphasize improper evidence at trial).
State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
does not bar reliance on the emergency aid exception.” ¶ 14 (1999).
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
4qtkidz LLC v. Hnt Holdings llc/beth Ford 513 P.3d 1106 Ariz. 2022
4qtkidz LLC v. Hnt Holdings llc/beth Ford 513 P.3d 1106 Ariz. 2022
¶ 19 (1999) (“[P]rotections contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and by incorporation of the Fifth Amendment, apply only to state actors, not to private parties.”).
State v. Elkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Elkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 17 (1999) (An error is harmless where the court is “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that evidence did not impact verdict.”) ().
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 23 (1999) (improperly admitted evidence caused “no actual prejudice .
State v. Coger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Coger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 13-4033(A); ¶ 22 (1999), abrogation on other grounds recognized in McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798, 816 (9th Cir. 2015); ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2014).
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A superior court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence will not be set aside absent a clear abuse of discretion, ¶ 12 (1999), and is viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s ruling, ¶ 2 (App. 2004).
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The exception may also justify a warrantless search of personal belongings when a person is “unconscious or otherwise unresponsive, is in need of emergency aid and the search is undertaken to facilitate the aid that might be necessary.” ¶ 22 , ¶ 15 , (holding that after officers lawfully entered motel room under emergency aid exception and encountered defendant therein, defendant’s “unresponsive state gave police separate probable cause to inspect the immediate area surrounding [him] for anythin
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The combined circumstances of the missing-person report, the information obtained by police officers concerning the victim’s Sharp
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
¶ 45, ( ); ¶ 49, (holding the discretion afforded to prosecutors under Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme does not violate the Eighth Amendment).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
See State v. Sharp, 193 Ariz. 414, 421 ¶ 22
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
(“Fulfilling the state action requirement is essential because the protections contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and by incorporation of the Fifth Amendment, apply only to state actors, not to private parties.”); see also Navajo County No. JV91000058, 183 Ariz. at 206, 901 P
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
8 denied, [King] did not waive his objection.”
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
-23 ¶¶ 28-29, -80 ¶¶ 28-29 (1999).
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
section 13-503 “expressly states that voluntary, temporary intoxication is not a defense to any crime or culpable mental state.” ¶ 30, ¶ 30 (1999) (emphasis added).
State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(any error in admitting defendant’s statement harmless in view of overwhelming evidence of guilt and independent evidence of inculpatory statement’s truth).