| 1 CA-CR 16-0494 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-08-10 |
—
|
State v. Watson
|
|
… r being transported to the police station and advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-73 (1966), Watson admitted he knew the bags contained marijuana, which he had purchased a few hours earlier that evening f …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0814-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-08-10 |
—
|
State v. Loya
|
|
… n of Loya’s statements made after she invoked her rights pursuant to Arizona v. Miranda, 384 U.S.436 (1966); (3) failed to interview witnesses other than the accident reconstructionist; (4) failed to consult expert witnesses concerning fibr …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0104-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-08-03 |
—
|
State v. Roque
|
|
… hange in the law, and newly discovered evidence. He also asserted violations of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966), and the marital privilege rule. Finally, he argued the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of an invalid …
|
| 1 CA-JV 17-0068 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-08-01 |
—
|
Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T.
|
|
… child, but counsel was not sure when that hearing was. DCS case manager Karina Miranda indicated she had been in contact with Mother several weeks earlier, and the court requested testimony from Miranda on the issue of Mother’s whereabouts …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0550 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-07-27 |
—
|
State v. Viliborghi
|
|
… ed solely on the facts found by the jury and admitted by [Appellant].” State v. Miranda-Cabrera, 209 Ariz. 220, 228, ¶ 35, 99 P.3d 35, 43 (App. 2004). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its imposition of sentence. …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0467 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-07-18 |
—
|
State v. Henderson
|
|
… t that he said Henderson made and its relation to Henderson’s invocation of his Miranda1 rights. ¶7 Out of the jury’s presence, the officer, in response to a question from Henderson, admitted that at some point during the invest …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0775-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-07-11 |
—
|
State v. Harm
|
|
… and that law enforcement officers obtained statements from him in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Harm also argues his trial counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to request a competency hearing and when counsel …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0723-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-07-06 |
—
|
State v. Harwood
|
|
… so argues that investigators should have informed him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), during a confrontation call with the victim, and that A.R.S. § 13- 1401(3) (2007) (defining “sexual intercourse”), is u …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0471 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-07-06 |
—
|
State v. Garrison
|
|
… nation, the right to remain silent, and the right have an attorney present. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460-61 (1966). 2 STATE v. GARRISON …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0135 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-06-29 |
—
|
State v. Zamora
|
|
… hile he was subject to custodial interrogation but before he was advised of his Miranda rights. See generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0431 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-06-15 |
—
|
State v. Cryer
|
|
… believed to be methamphetamine. The officer then arrested Cryer and gave him a Miranda warning.1 ¶3 The officer then questioned Cryer and he admitted that the cigarette pack and methamphetamine were his and that he had just pur …
|
| No. 1 CA-CR 15-0684 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-06-11 |
—
|
State v. Escalante
|
|
… out ten or fifteen minutes later, Detective Sinn arrived and read Escalante his Miranda 2 rights. When Detective Sinn asked Escalante where he was coming from, Escalante responded “Camp Verde,” but would not respond to specific questions as …
|
| No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0416 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-05-30 |
—
|
State v. Urrea
|
|
… s consent was not voluntary because he had not been read his rights pursuant to Miranda, 2 he had been told other law enforcement officers were on their way, and there was a lack of any sort of intervening circumstance to break the causal c …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0338 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-05-18 |
—
|
State v. Foster
|
|
… d Article II, Sections 4, 8, 10, and 32 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). After a suppression hearing, the court declined to suppress Foster’s statements, finding that Foster was not in custody …
|
| CR-16-0286-PR |
Ariz. |
2017-04-13 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill
|
|
… Program Statement of Facts.” On the form, Gill initialed that he understood his Miranda rights and avowed that “I fully understand that what I have written here may be used against me in a court of law should I fail to satisfactorily comple …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0199 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-04-04 |
—
|
State v. Lerke
|
|
… d out of Bloomfield, New Mexico, and keys to post office boxes. After receiving Miranda warnings, Lerke agreed to speak with the detective and offered yet another version of events. This time, Lerke stated he was walking down the road when …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0496 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-04-04 |
—
|
State v. Branin
|
|
… was arrested and transported to a police checkpoint. There, Branin was read his Miranda1 rights and informed of Arizona’s implied consent law under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 28-1321,2 and he consented to a blood draw. Testing sh …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0242 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-28 |
—
|
State v. McClain
|
|
… under arrest and before the detective advised McClain of his rights pursuant to Miranda5 were not admissible at trial, as conceded by the State. As to statements McClain made after he was advised pursuant to Miranda, the court found that Mc …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0400 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-23 |
—
|
State v. Ginorio
|
|
… o voluntarily met with Deputy Hale at the Sheriff’s department and was read her Miranda rights. Ginorio was arrested and indicted in July 2015 with one count of aggravated taking the identify of another, a class 3 felony, forgery, a class 4 …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0276-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-23 |
—
|
State v. Barela
|
|
… ctive due to the investigators’ failure to advise him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, and the superior court should have ordered testing to determine if Barela had a sleep disorder that caused the accident rather than his meth …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0160 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-16 |
—
|
State v. Singleton
|
|
… ce, a hearing in which his statements were determined not to be in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and a three-day trial, where Singleton unsuccessfully moved for a judgment of acquittal, the jury found him guilty. The …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0173 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-09 |
—
|
State v. Hernandez
|
|
… ice found and arrested Hernandez several days later. After being advised of his Miranda1 rights, Hernandez denied any knowledge of the yard sale. ¶5 The State charged Hernandez with aggravated robbery.2 A jury found Hernandez gu …
|
| No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0368 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-09 |
—
|
State v. Millis
|
|
… her text message exchange with Millis. They located Millis, advised him of his Miranda 2 rights, and he agreed to an interview. When they confronted him with information about C.K.’s head injuries, Millis told the detectives he had acciden …
|
| No. 1 CA-CR 15-0650 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-07 |
—
|
State v. Reiher
|
|
… on 28-1381(A)(1), (2) (2017). 2 After advising Reiher of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Ari *77 zona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), a police officer read him the implied consent affidavit (admin per se) form. Afte …
|
| No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0055 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-03-02 |
—
|
State v. Peltz
|
|
… charged offense, “lesser included offense would still be applicable”); State v. Miranda, 198 Ariz. 426, ¶ 9 , 10 P.3d 1213, 1215 (App. 2000) (instruction on lesser-included offense proper if supported by evidence). ¶ 10 The trial court did …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0167 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-02-28 |
—
|
State v. Belvin
|
|
… ents made by her to the police before she was advised of her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We review orders regarding the admissibility of a defendant’s statements for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Boggs …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0015-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-02-21 |
—
|
State v. Chambers
|
|
… erior court erred by: (1) admitting admissions he made to investigators without Miranda warnings; (2) admitting perjured testimony; (3) incorrectly instructing the jury; and (4) permitting jurors to possess cell phones during deliberations. …
|
| 1 CA-CR 14-0828-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-02-21 |
—
|
State v. McLean
|
|
… e interview with [codefendant], [the officer] testified under oath that he read Miranda rights, that [codefendant] agreed to testify – or agreed to answer questions, that he told him he was selling crack cocaine that day."1 This is not a co …
|
| 1 CA-CR 14-0812-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-02-14 |
—
|
State v. Duke
|
|
… or law. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), 32.8(a). The precluded claims included: Miranda1 and voluntariness issues, unconstitutional search and seizure, coerced confession, perjured testimony at trial, improper jury instructions, and imprope …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0638 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-02-09 |
—
|
State v. Deng
|
|
… Assuming, arguendo, that the victim was a state agent, Deng was not entitled to Miranda warnings because during the phone call he was not in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action. See Keller, 114 Ariz. at 573 (“The United S …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0659 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-02-02 |
—
|
State v. Rodriguez
|
|
… e to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense. State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67, 68, ¶ 2 (2001). A person cannot be convicted of both a greater and lesser-included offense. State v. Engram, 171 Ariz. 363, 363 (App. 199 …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0661 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-01-31 |
—
|
State v. Wright
|
|
… g such behavior “may be too equivocal”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67 (2001), however this evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding and is not an abuse of discretion. Though Defendant may h …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0261 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-01-26 |
—
|
State v. Ramos
|
|
… otographs of marijuana and currency bundled in a way similar to the 2 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 STATE v. RAMOS Decis …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0230 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-01-12 |
—
|
State v. Shreve
|
|
… While other officers searched Shreve’s residence, a detective administered Miranda1 warnings before interviewing Shreve. Initially, Shreve denied intentionally uploading child pornography, stating that he was not interested in pornogra …
|
| CR-13-0088-AP |
Ariz. |
2017-01-12 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco
|
|
… e-Orozco in Idaho and notified Phoenix Police. ¶5 After waiving his Miranda3 rights, Escalante-Orozco told Phoenix Police officers that he drank two beers on the night of the murder and then “everything went blank” until he foun …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0630 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-01-05 |
—
|
State v. Tracy
|
|
… e second day of trial, Detective Brandon Grasse testified that Tracy waived his Miranda4 rights and spoke to him during three separate recorded interviews. Detective Grasse testified that he did not make any threats or promises, and that Tr …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0056 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-01-04 |
—
|
State v. Williams
|
|
… ng. ¶30 The Arizona Supreme Court explained in State v. Keller that “Miranda applies only to ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers [a]fter a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0231 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2017-01-04 |
—
|
State v. Deans
|
|
… oney on it. After Officer H. arrested Defendant and read her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Defendant told him she “thought the card had purchased the items,” although she left without a receipt. Officer H. also …
|
| CR-16-0012-PR |
Ariz. |
2016-12-22 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Donald Wayne Dalton
|
|
… t. See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 68, 887 P.2d 592, 598 (App. 1994) (quoting Miranda v. United States, 255 F.2d 9, 17 (1st Cir. 1958), to explain that polling permits the parties to “ascertain with certainty that a unanimous verdict has …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0710 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-12-20 |
—
|
State v. Peterman
|
|
… to move about without permission. Although no officer informed Peterman of her Miranda2 rights, Agent M. inquired about her drug use. In response to Agent M.’s questions, Peterman admitted that she obtained marijuana from Monteiro, but cla …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0241 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-12-06 |
—
|
State v. Coffelt
|
|
… ted positive as methamphetamine. ¶4 Deputy AD advised Coffelt of her Miranda2 rights before beginning to question her. Coffelt confirmed she had been selling methamphetamine, telling Deputy AD that she did so to help with financi …
|
| 1 CA-CV 16-0009 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-12-01 |
—
|
State v. Banda
|
|
… d in an unfair manner,” including the failure to advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Banda also argues “half-way through the [trial] the detective inquired about my race,” causing a change in “the demeano …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0751 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-11-22 |
—
|
State v. Devorce
|
|
… r his identification. The record does not reflect whether Devorce was given his Miranda2 warnings, however, when confronted by Sergeant P, Devorce invoked his Fifth Amendment rights by requesting counsel. Sergeant P then arrested Devorce fo …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0621 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-11-10 |
—
|
State v. Hargett
|
|
… ound in the trunk. ¶4 After being advised of her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Hargett agreed to participate in a drug influence evaluation. During the evaluation, Hargett admitted she had taken hyd …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0542 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-11-03 |
—
|
State v. Hernandez
|
|
… ¶7 M. testified that she advised Hernandez of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and interviewed Hernandez, who asserted he carried the handgun for protection. He admitted he knew the other two individ …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0785 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-10-20 |
—
|
State v. Cote
|
|
… terview, the interviewing detective advised Appellant of his rights pursuant to Miranda,3 and Appellant agreed to speak with the detective. During the interview, Appellant admitted he had engaged in the sexual conduct A.C. had previously de …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0709 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-10-20 |
—
|
State v. Esquerra
|
|
… rformed poorly on field sobriety tests, the officers arrested him, read him his Miranda rights, and transported him to the Kingman police station. At the police station Esquerra consented to breath tests. The breath tests showed he had a bl …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0419 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-10-18 |
—
|
State v. Wright
|
|
… used. ¶4 Baynes arrested Wright and advised him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Wright admitted a drug test would indicate the presence of methamphetamine in his system. Baynes 1 The Honorable …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0171 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-10-11 |
—
|
State v. Jernigan
|
|
… dant has the burden to raise issues regarding voluntariness and compliance with Miranda. See, e.g., State v. Alvarado, 121 Ariz. 485, 487-88 (1979); State v. Anaya, 170 Ariz. 436, 443 (App. 1991). Until the defendant seeks to suppress the s …
|
| 2 CA-CR 2015-0077 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-10-07 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder
|
|
… told Ives his version of what had taken place. Ives then advised Snyder of his Miranda2 rights before questioning him. Snyder told Ives he was about to purchase the steaks when he realized he did not have a certain “card” he had intended t …
|