Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Desmond v. Superior Court, 779 P.2d 1261.

50 citing documents.

State v. De Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. De Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ct. of Maricopa Cnty., (holding that two subsections of the driving-under-the-influence statute were different crimes because one proscribed driving under the influence of liquor while the other proscribed driving over a certain blood alcohol level).
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Desmond v. Superior Court (State), -28 (1989) (“The proper procedure to be followed when a party offers [a] BAC result into evidence without any relation-back testimony is for the court to admit the portion of the test result that indicates the presence of alcohol in the blood— but not the percentage .
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Miller 321 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Miller 321 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Desmond v. Superior Court (Maricopa)
State v. Claybrook 975 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Claybrook 975 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The expert witness who presents BAC retroactive extrapolation evidence “can be a police officer or the operator of the machine if properly certified and in addition possesses superior knowledge, experience and expertise on the question.”
State v. Klausner 978 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Klausner 978 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Guerra 958 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Guerra 958 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(construing former versions of both A.R.S.
State v. Gallow 914 P.2d 1311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Gallow 914 P.2d 1311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Gallow also argues, , that because there was no relation-back testimony, the state was not entitled to the instruction on the presumptions created by blood alcohol concentration under § 28-692(E).
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
Defendant appealed his convictions, arguing that (1) the state failed to present any “relation-back” evidence concerning his BAC at the time he was driving, , and (2) the trial court should have dismissed the case against him with prejudice because the continuance granted when the prosecutor was *187 trying another case violated the 150-day Hinson rule.
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Riddel 817 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Riddel 817 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
1 The petition presents one issue: , prevent the state from introducing expert testimony concerning the amount of alcohol, as reflected by the number of drinks, in a defendant’s system?
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
is a matter of statewide concern, we accept jurisdiction of this special action.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Brown 815 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Brown 815 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
requires the state to relate back a defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to the time of driving for the results of the blood test to be admissible in a prosecution for reckless manslaughter.
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
We originally granted review of that portion of the court of appeals’
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams filed a motion to suppress his BAC results, , i.e., that the evidence of his GCI could not be accurately used to determine his BAC at the time of driving.
Cacavas v. Bowen 811 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Cacavas v. Bowen 811 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Petitioners contend that in this regard, “[t]he trial court’s order appears to be an abuse of discretion as it disregards case law which has been set as mandatory precedent,”
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Compare, , (BAC test results must relate back to time of driving for criminal conviction under section 28-692) with State ex rel.
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
On appeal, he argues that: (1) his convictions must be reversed because the state failed to present any “relation-back” , (2) the trial court should have dismissed the case because the 150- , was violated.
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
1 On appeal, he claims that: *549 (1) the state failed to present “relation-back” , (2) the aggravated assault cannot be a , (3) the prosecutor improperly argued to the jury that the charge against defendant was evidence; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Isbell v. Miller 797 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Isbell v. Miller 797 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
required relation back evidence in suspension proceedings under section 28-694.
State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
at 288-289 , 798 P.2d at 1297-1298
State Ex Rel. Ross v. Nance 798 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Ross v. Nance 798 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1990
On appeal, the superior court vacated the order of suspension, holding that this court’s recent decision in Desmond v. Su *287 perior Court, , 779 P,2d 1261 (1989) required relation back evidence in suspension proceedings under A.R.S.