| No. 1 CA-CR 15-0202 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-10-04 |
—
|
State v. Gulley
|
|
… “does not require that one actually disturb the peace of another,..." State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67 , 69, ¶ 5, 22 P.3d 506 , 508 (2001); see State v. Cutright, 196 Ariz. 567, 572, ¶ 25 , 2 P.3d 657, 663 (App. 1999). . Notably, as opposed …
|
| 1 CA-CR 14-0665-PRPC |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-09-27 |
—
|
State v. Jackson
|
|
… on- relief proceeding was ineffective because he failed to raise an issue under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). ¶2 We grant review, but we deny relief. Jackson could have raised his claim in a timely second post-convic …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0140 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-09-22 |
—
|
State v. Badertscher
|
|
… tatements of drug use, the court found the statements violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1964), but were made voluntarily and could be used for 1Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rul …
|
| 1 CA-CR 16-0022 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-09-20 |
—
|
State v. Whitlock
|
|
… car, Officer Nollette approached the driver — Whitlock — and advised her of her Miranda rights. ¶3 After being placed in the patrol car, Whitlock agreed to answer questions and stated that the Infiniti belonged to a man named “ …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0679 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-09-15 |
—
|
State v. Lynam
|
|
… e warrant, Lynam agreed to speak with Detective Edgerton after she administered Miranda3 warnings before conducting an audiotaped interview. In the interview Lynam admitted: (1) he was the sole user of his computer, (2) the emails containin …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0580 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-09-15 |
—
|
State v. Orner
|
|
… ore starting the third interview, Officer JW informed Orner of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). During the interviews, Orner made conflicting statements about the positions of the victims relative to his position du …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0614 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-09-13 |
—
|
State v. Linares
|
|
… ment, the investigator turned the recording device back on and read Linares his Miranda1 rights, after which Linares agreed to answer questions. One officer then repeated what Linares had told them and Linares responded by apologizing for h …
|
| CR-15-0348-PR |
Ariz. |
2016-09-13 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle
|
|
… rime was unambiguous and did not include that as an element); see also State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67, 69 ¶ 5, 22 P.3d 506, 508 (2001) (“Courts may not add elements to crimes defined by statute.”). ¶37 Holle does not cite, nor ha …
|
| CR-16-0348-PR |
Ariz. |
2016-09-13 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle
|
|
… rime was unambiguous and did not include that as an element); see also State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67 , 69 ¶ 5, 22 P.3d 506, 508 (2001) (“Courts may not add elements to crimes defined by statute.”). *308 ¶ 37 Hollé does not cite, nor have w …
|
| CR-15-0301-PR |
Ariz. |
2016-09-12 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples
|
|
… tt, after viewing the video, he detained Peoples in his apartment, read him his Miranda rights, and questioned him about the video. Peoples confirmed that he had sex with D.C. during the early morning hours and filmed it with his phone. Peo …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0106 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-09-08 |
—
|
State v. Peterson
|
|
… ve Leske interviewed Peterson at the police station. After being advised of his Miranda1 rights, Peterson told the detective that he was “going to take the blame for [Mother].” Detective Leske instructed Peterson to simply tell the truth, a …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0626 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-30 |
—
|
State v. Wilson
|
|
… ood that he was able to draw in a blood kit box. Trooper L then read Wilson his Miranda1 rights. The blood testing showed that Wilson had a BAC of 0.150.2 Using retrograde analysis, the evidence showed that within two hours of driving, Wils …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0549 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-30 |
—
|
State v. Totress
|
|
… ine, and about $500. ¶4 After the detective advised Totress of his Miranda rights, Totress told the detective he had “crack, cocaine and weed in [his] pocket.” The detective searched the car and found cooking pots, a ladle, a b …
|
| 1 CA-CR 13-0694 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-30 |
—
|
State v. Clary
|
|
… ¶4 At the substation, after being advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda,2 Clary invoked his right to counsel and telephoned his father (“Clary Sr.”), who is a lawyer. Clary Sr. used a second phone to call a criminal defense …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0216 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-23 |
—
|
State v. Chandler
|
|
… lade likely contained female DNA. ¶9 After his arrest and subsequent Miranda warnings, Chandler agreed to be interviewed by Phoenix Police Officer Porter. In that interview, Chandler admitted he walked from the east side of the g …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0565 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-18 |
—
|
State v. Dodd
|
|
… sser included offense of aggravated assault as charged in count 1. See State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67, 68, ¶ 3 (2001); State v. Angle, 149 Ariz. 478, 479 (1986). ¶10 A trial court is required to instruct only on “necessarily inc …
|
| 2 CA-CR 2015-0056 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-16 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague
|
|
… After Olague’s arrest, a detective provided him the advisory required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and conducted an interview. Before trial, Olague filed a motion to suppress the statements from the interview, which th …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0230 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-04 |
—
|
State v. Hearn
|
|
… the Court ¶9 Following his arrest and waiver of rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Hearn admitted he participated in the events described, but claimed he did so “under duress.” Hearn claimed he and his …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0507 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-08-04 |
—
|
State v. Strait
|
|
… t to the police station, Officer Ennis advised Strait of his rights pursuant to Miranda,2 and Strait agreed to cooperate. When asked how he acquired the methamphetamine, Strait answered that he received it in exchange for a favor. He also d …
|
| CR-15-0346-PR |
Ariz. |
2016-07-29 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres MacIel
|
|
… tablish the person’s guilt if they are not preceded by the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 STATE V. MACIEL Opinion of the Court (1966). We here hold that Carlos …
|
| No. CR-15-0346-PR |
Ariz. |
2016-07-29 |
—
|
State v. Maciel
|
|
… tablish the person’s guilt if they are not preceded by the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S, 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We here hold that Carlos Andres Maeiel’s statements are admissible because he was not i …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0263 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-07-19 |
—
|
State v. Walker
|
|
… oted, the instructions were in accordance with then- existing law. See State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67, 68 n.1, ¶ 1, 22 P.3d 506, 507 n.1 (2001) (invited error doctrine does not bar defendant from appealing jury instruction given by superior …
|
| 1 CA-SA 16-0132 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-07-14 |
—
|
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state
|
|
… Reyes for driving under the influence. ¶4 The officer read Reyes his Miranda rights and the Arizona Implied Consent Law. Reyes stated that he understood both and would voluntarily answer the officer’s questions and give a blood s …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0453 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-07-12 |
—
|
State v. Shine
|
|
… ought him in for questioning. At the outset, the detective advised Shine of his Miranda rights and Shine confirmed he understood them. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Shine then told the detective that he had been visiting his …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0699 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-07-12 |
—
|
State v. Crawford
|
|
… lice station for an interview that same day. After Crawford was reminded of his Miranda1 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 STATE v. CRAWFORD …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0439 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-07-05 |
—
|
State v. Moreno
|
|
… to Officer D.G. at the station, which, he argued, were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The superior court denied Moreno’s motion before the start of trial. …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0291 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Hernandez
|
|
… found Hernandez sitting at home on the porch steps. A deputy read Hernandez his Miranda rights, and while frisking him for weapons, found a small canister containing marijuana. Hernandez admitted that the marijuana was his. ¶5 W …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0604 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Chesson
|
|
… o showed Rick the six-person photo lineup interviewed him. After being read his Miranda2 rights and agreeing to answer questions, Chesson said that he was not with the truck that day and that he was home all day. He also told the detective …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0636 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Sagarnaga
|
|
… the precinct. ¶4 At the precinct, Officer D.M. read Sagarnaga his Miranda rights and conducted an interview. Sagarnaga confirmed his initial statements including that he had set the gun behind the driver’s seat. As a prohibite …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0509 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-06-23 |
—
|
State v. Gill
|
|
… ll and his attorney signed, Gill indicated he understood his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and avowed that “I fully understand that what I have written here may be used against me in a court of law should I fai …
|
| CR-15-0293-PR |
Ariz. |
2016-06-20 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray
|
|
… ’s affirmative admission of the elements. For example, a defendant who is given Miranda warnings and makes a statement to the police could rely on his admissions to satisfy § 13-206(A), as long as the defendant does not contest the validity …
|
| CR-11-0406-AP |
Ariz. |
2016-06-17 |
—
|
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau
|
|
… Opinion of the Court ¶25 On June 29, 2006, Carmen Miranda was at a carwash speaking with her boyfriend on her cellphone when he overheard a male’s voice demand that Miranda give him something. Surveillance vide …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0494 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-06-16 |
—
|
State v. Brennan
|
|
… aricopa County and escorted him to an interview room, where he read Brennan his Miranda warnings. ¶6 During the interview, Brennan stated he pulled the check from the middle of J.M.’s checkbook, wrote his name on the check, fil …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0646 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-06-14 |
—
|
State v. Kegler
|
|
… DISCUSSION A. Issues Raised in Supplemental Brief. 1. Alleged Miranda violation. ¶5 Kegler argues the court erred in admitting his statement to the detective because it was made in violation of his rights under …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0112 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-05-31 |
—
|
State v. Cross
|
|
… ly claimed ownership of the pipe. After being advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against the de …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0222 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-05-17 |
—
|
State v. Hollins
|
|
… idence allegedly obtained as a result of a police interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order suppressing Hollins’s statements to police about his ownership of a ba …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0245 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-05-12 |
—
|
State v. Adkins
|
|
… After a break in the interview, detective Zach advised defendant of his Miranda1 rights. Defendant, however, continued to speak 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 334 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0415 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-04-19 |
—
|
State v. Wooten
|
|
… n this information, Detective M.C. interviewed Wooten, after warning him of his Miranda rights.2 Wooten first told the detective a stranger outside the pawnshop had asked him to help make the sale because the stranger did not have the neces …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0460 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-04-14 |
—
|
State v. Ortiz-Ronces
|
|
… her and that his driver’s license was suspended. After reading Ortiz-Ronces his Miranda1 rights and having him sign an implied consent form for a blood draw, a phlebotomist drew Ortiz-Ronces’ blood. A toxicology expert later determined that …
|
| 1 CA-IC 15-0004 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-04-14 |
—
|
Miranda v. De Perez
|
|
… S DIVISION ONE MARIA O. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, HILDA M. ALVARENGA DE PEREZ, Re …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0006 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-03-31 |
—
|
State v. Perkins
|
|
… was 330 milligrams of methamphetamine. ¶6 After Perkins was read his Miranda1 rights and he stated that he understood them, an officer asked Perkins what fell from his lap and Perkins responded with “the drugs weren’t mine.” When …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0316 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-03-24 |
—
|
State v. Coleman
|
|
… At the location of the traffic stop, Sergeant Uptain read Coleman his Miranda rights, confirmed Coleman understood them, and interviewed him. Coleman denied seeing the marijuana in the home he had just come from, denied knowing ho …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0311 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-03-15 |
—
|
State v. Brookins
|
|
… ng, that Brookins asked for an attorney after being read his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The court denied the motion but offered to give a curative jury instruction and have the statement stricken from the re …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0160 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-02-11 |
—
|
State v. Hunsaker
|
|
… bject of the investigation. ¶3 After Officer T.T. read Hunsaker her Miranda2 rights at the residence, she agreed to speak with him. She told Officer T.T. that there was a meth pipe in her bedroom that belonged to Hakes. Hunsaker …
|
| 1 CA-CR 14-0381 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-02-04 |
—
|
State v. Carrillo
|
|
… nberg, Appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time, was given his juvenile Miranda2 warnings and initially denied any involvement in the incident. Appellant eventually admitted that he and the others followed the victim, and although h …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0034 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-01-21 |
—
|
State v. Krznarich
|
|
… TATE v. KRZNARICH Decision of the Court pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Krznarich agreed to answer questions and, in his presence, Officer Matthew removed and inspected the contents of the wa …
|
| 1 CA-CR 14-0676 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-01-19 |
—
|
State v. Mayes
|
|
… rijuana, and that it belonged to him. The detective subsequently read Mayes his Miranda2 rights, and gave the seized DVDs, which were suspected to be counterfeit, to Detective Fitzgerald, who had been called for assistance. 1 We view th …
|
| 1 CA-CR 14-0260 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-01-19 |
—
|
State v. Nelson
|
|
… he would shoot him, and that he pointed the gun at the officer’s chest. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 STATE v. NELSON Deci …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0440 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-01-14 |
—
|
State v. Pena
|
|
… icer’s experience suggested that the substance was marijuana. Pena was read his Miranda2 rights, agreed to talk with the officer and said the substance was marijuana. ¶3 Pena was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana …
|
| 1 CA-CR 15-0384 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
2016-01-12 |
—
|
State v. Dean
|
|
… ooking for Dean, eventually found him, and arrested him. After reading Dean his Miranda rights, and after Dean acknowledged to Officer M.F. that he understood his rights and agreed to talk to her, Officer M.F. asked him if he knew why he wa …
|