Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C., 744 P.2d 675.

32 citing documents.

Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz 532 P.3d 752 Ariz. 2023
Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz 532 P.3d 752 Ariz. 2023
We acknowledge that the legislature has authority to craft substantive laws that protect the constitutional right to “due process of law.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 4; see, e.g., Reed, 248 Ariz. at 77 ¶ 16 (“[P]rocedural rules ‘may not diminish or augment substantive rights’” ()).
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
P. 31.19(c)–(d) (setting forth disposition alternatives); (stating that court-made procedural rules “may not diminish or augment substantive rights” (quoting Birmingham, 95 Ariz. at 316)).
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Cordon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc., (“Procedural matters are generally governed by the law of the forum state.”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 122 (1971)); (“[R]ules of evidence are procedural in nature.”).
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
But the Fifth Amendment does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, and “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence.”
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc., (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 122 (1971) (“Procedural matters are generally governed by the law of the forum state.”)); (“[R]ules of evidence are procedural in nature.”).
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
ndre M., blood evidence is not testimonial and therefore is not subject to suppression on a Fifth Amendment voluntariness basis, citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), and neither is the refusal to submit to blood testing
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
E.g., State v. Superior Court (Ahrens)
State Ex Rel. Verburg v. Jones 121 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Verburg v. Jones 121 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See State v. Superior Court (Ahrens), , (holding that refusal to take breath test is not testimonial and is therefore admissible without violating Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination); Thornton, 172 Ariz. at 452, 837 P.2d at 1187 (same); Spears, 154 Ariz. at 277, 742 P.2d at 288 (holding that admission of evi
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Moreover, “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence but physical evidence only and therefore admissible at a criminal trial for DUI.” State v. Superior Ct. (Ahrens)
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Irving 797 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Irving 797 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
where it noted that the court will look to how “reasonable and workable” the statutes are in relation to court-promulgated rules.
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Superior *486 Court
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
the defendant was arrested and was read portions of the implied consent law including the statement, “You will not be allowed to call an attorney before deciding if you will take this test.” The supreme court noted in a footnote: This may have been bad advice.
State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1987
State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1987
2 , held that the statutory provision A.R.S.