Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Trebus v. Davis, 944 P.2d 1235.

30 citing documents.

Franz v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Franz v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(The prosecutor must “instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case.” (emphasis added)), abrogated on other grounds by, Willis, 253 Ariz. at 461-62, ¶¶ 27-32.
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Preston argues the State violated his due process rights during the grand jury proceeding by failing “to present exculpatory evidence admitting that they did not collect DNA swabs from [Preston’s] body or clothing.” True, if “exculpatory information [is] provided by the police, the law requires that it be presented to the grand jury.”
State of Arizona v. Hon. Jeffrey T. Bergin, Hon. Danielle Liwski Remington 541 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. Jeffrey T. Bergin, Hon. Danielle Liwski Remington 541 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
2-26 (1997) (requiring prosecutor to advise grand jury of defendant’s request to appear or to present clearly exculpatory evidence).
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
BERNINI/STATE Opinion of the Court manner.”); (“[D]ue process compels the prosecutor to make a fair and impartial presentation to the grand jury.”); see also Maretick, 204 Ariz. at 197 ¶ 8 (“To do its job effectively, the grand jury must receive a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence.”).
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Nevertheless, based on the state’s coupled with the unfair presentation of its case, the respondent abused his discretion in denying Hansen’s Rule 12.9 motion.
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See generally, (due process requires a fair presentation to the grand jury, which may require a presentation of clearly exculpatory evidence).
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state 486 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state 486 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Louis E Cespedes v. Hon. lee/state Ariz. 2017
Louis E Cespedes v. Hon. lee/state Ariz. 2017
B. ¶9 A prosecutor has a duty “to instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case.”
Washburn v. Hon. sanders/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Washburn v. Hon. sanders/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The prosecutor need not present all exculpatory evidence, but must present “clearly exculpatory” evidence: “evidence of such weight that it might deter the grand jury from finding the existence of probable cause.”
Black v. Coker 247 P.3d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bashir v. Pineda 248 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bashir v. Pineda 248 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Black v. Coker 247 P.3d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
He argued the Arizona Supreme Court’s , required that his request be transmitted to the grand jury.
Francis v. Sanders 215 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Francis v. Sanders 215 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(quoting State v. Coconino County Superior Court (Mauro), , , 1389 (1984)).
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(“We hold that the citizen’s arrest statutes were part of the applicable law given the facts of the case, and it was the duty of the prosecutor as legal advisor to the *426 grand jury to instruct on that law.”); , (“[Due process] requires the prosecutor to instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case.”).
Herrell v. Sargeant 944 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1997
Herrell v. Sargeant 944 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1997