Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 4 | 6 |
State v. Lehrgreen2 sentences2009See Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, ¶¶ 48-52 , 38 P.3d at 1184 ; Nieto, 118 Ariz. at 605-06 , 578 P.2d at 1034-35 (although no Dessureault hearing, appellate court evaluated Biggers factors to determine reliability of identification at pretrial hearing); see also State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 1, 4-5 (1980). 2009See Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, ¶¶ 48-52 , 38 P.3d at 1184 ; Nieto, 118 Ariz. at 605-06 , 578 P.2d at 1034-35 (although no Dessureault hearing, appellate court evaluated Biggers factors to determine reliability of identification at pretrial hearing); see also State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 1, 4-5 (1980). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Bruggemangreen2 sentences2016“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.” State v. Bruggeman, 161 Ariz. 508, 510 (App. 1989). ¶23 The trial court did not err in refusing Barlow’s request to eliminate one of the Biggers factors, the witness’s certainty, from the standard jury instruction on eyewitness identification testimony. 2016“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.” State v. Bruggeman, 161 Ariz. 508, 510 (App. 1989). ¶23 The trial court did not err in refusing Barlow’s request to eliminate one of the Biggers factors, the witness’s certainty, from the standard jury instruction on eyewitness identification testimony. | 3 | 3 |
Manson v. Brathwaitegreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dessureaultgreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeaugreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Nietogreen2 sentences2014See State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 546-47 , 804 P.2d 72, 79-80 (1990) (relying in part on extensive cross-examination of witness); State v. Nieto, 118 Ariz. 603, 605 , 578 P.2d 1032, 1034 (App.1978) (noting Biggers factors are “not exclusive”). ¶ 11 We agree with both parties that the trial court erred by concluding Officer Wolfe’s identification was not subject to a Dessureault analysis. 2014See State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 546-47 , 804 P.2d 72, 79-80 (1990) (relying in part on extensive cross-examination of witness); State v. Nieto, 118 Ariz. 603, 605 , 578 P.2d 1032, 1034 (App.1978) (noting Biggers factors are “not exclusive”). ¶ 11 We agree with both parties that the trial court erred by concluding Officer Wolfe’s identification was not subject to a Dessureault analysis. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Fierroagreen2 sentences2015See State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 546-47 , 804 P.2d 72, 79-80 (1990) (relying in part on extensive cross-examination of identifying witness instead of exclusively on enumerated Biggers factors). ¶ 9 Rojo-Valenzuela argues that the foregoing factors require factual assessments and credibility determinations that must be made by the trial judge, who has the opportunity to observe the identifying witness. 2015See State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 546-47 , 804 P.2d 72, 79-80 (1990) (relying in part on extensive cross-examination of identifying witness instead of exclusively on enumerated Biggers factors). ¶ 9 Rojo-Valenzuela argues that the foregoing factors require factual assessments and credibility determinations that must be made by the trial judge, who has the opportunity to observe the identifying witness. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tresizegreen2 sentences2009See Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, ¶¶ 48-52 , 38 P.3d at 1184 ; Nieto, 118 Ariz. at 605-06 , 578 P.2d at 1034-35 (although no Dessureault hearing, appellate court evaluated Biggers factors to determine reliability of identification at pretrial hearing); see also State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 1, 4-5 (1980). 2009See Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, ¶¶ 48-52 , 38 P.3d at 1184 ; Nieto, 118 Ariz. at 605-06 , 578 P.2d at 1034-35 (although no Dessureault hearing, appellate court evaluated Biggers factors to determine reliability of identification at pretrial hearing); see also State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 1, 4-5 (1980). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2020See Alvarez, 145 Ariz. at 372 (considering the Biggers factors and finding identification reliable without analyzing the accuracy of the witness’ prior description); Bracy, 145 Ariz. at 531–32 (finding identification reliable despite inconsistencies in descriptions of the criminals). 2020See Alvarez, 145 Ariz. at 372 (considering the Biggers factors and finding identification reliable without analyzing the accuracy of the witness’ prior description); Bracy, 145 Ariz. at 531–32 (finding identification reliable despite inconsistencies in descriptions of the criminals). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Priongreen2 sentences2016See id. at ¶ 12; State v. Prion, 203 Ariz. 157 , 160 ¶ 15, 52 P.3d 189, 192 (2002) (“There is no need to perform a Biggers analysis when the identification is not the result of state action.”). 2016See id. at ¶ 12; State v. Prion, 203 Ariz. 157 , 160 ¶ 15, 52 P.3d 189, 192 (2002) (“There is no need to perform a Biggers analysis when the identification is not the result of state action.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2014See Moore, 222 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 17 , 213 P.3d at 156 . ¶15 In addition to the Biggers factors, the trial court here also considered two “non-Biggers factors” in determining that the identification was reliable. 2014See Moore, 222 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 17 , 213 P.3d at 156 . ¶15 In addition to the Biggers factors, the trial court here also considered two “non-Biggers factors” in determining that the identification was reliable. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trujillogreen2 sentences2014As the state acknowledges, “[t]he mere fact that an identification is based on a suspect’s build and clothing — as opposed to the suspect’s face — does not exempt the identification from due process analysis.” 3 State v. Trujillo, 120 Ariz. 527, 530 , 587 P.2d 246, 249 (1978) (applying Biggers factors to analyze identification based on physical stature, clothing, and length of hair); see also Willis v. Garrison, 624 F.2d 491 , 494 *621 (4th Cir.1980) (Biggers factors applied to identification based on height, weight, clothing, and complexion). 2014As the state acknowledges, “[t]he mere fact that an identification is based on a suspect’s build and clothing — as opposed to the suspect’s face — does not exempt the identification from due process analysis.” 3 State v. Trujillo, 120 Ariz. 527, 530 , 587 P.2d 246, 249 (1978) (applying Biggers factors to analyze identification based on physical stature, clothing, and length of hair); see also Willis v. Garrison, 624 F.2d 491 , 494 *621 (4th Cir.1980) (Biggers factors applied to identification based on height, weight, clothing, and complexion). | 1 | 1 |
Henry Willis, Jr. v. Samuel Garrison, Warden And, Rufus Edmisten, Attorney General of North Carolinagreen2 sentences2014As the state acknowledges, “[t]he mere fact that an identification is based on a suspect’s build and clothing — as opposed to the suspect’s face — does not exempt the identification from due process analysis.” 3 State v. Trujillo, 120 Ariz. 527, 530 , 587 P.2d 246, 249 (1978) (applying Biggers factors to analyze identification based on physical stature, clothing, and length of hair); see also Willis v. Garrison, 624 F.2d 491 , 494 *621 (4th Cir.1980) (Biggers factors applied to identification based on height, weight, clothing, and complexion). 2014As the state acknowledges, “[t]he mere fact that an identification is based on a suspect’s build and clothing — as opposed to the suspect’s face — does not exempt the identification from due process analysis.” 3 State v. Trujillo, 120 Ariz. 527, 530 , 587 P.2d 246, 249 (1978) (applying Biggers factors to analyze identification based on physical stature, clothing, and length of hair); see also Willis v. Garrison, 624 F.2d 491 , 494 *621 (4th Cir.1980) (Biggers factors applied to identification based on height, weight, clothing, and complexion). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schillemangreen2 sentences2002See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 201 , 93 S.Ct. at 383 (seven month delay did not outweigh other reliability factors); State v. Schilleman, 125 Ariz. 294, 297 , 609 P.2d 564, 567 (1980)(five month delay not fatal). 2002See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 201 , 93 S.Ct. at 383 (seven month delay did not outweigh other reliability factors); State v. Schilleman, 125 Ariz. 294, 297 , 609 P.2d 564, 567 (1980)(five month delay not fatal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2002State v. Williams, 166 Ariz. 132, 135-39 , 800 P.2d 1240, 1243-47 (1987). ¶ 15 There is no need to perform a Biggers analysis when the identification is not the result of state action. 2002State v. Williams, 166 Ariz. 132, 135-39 , 800 P.2d 1240, 1243-47 (1987). ¶ 15 There is no need to perform a Biggers analysis when the identification is not the result of state action. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1987E.g., Wilson v. Commonwealth, 695 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Ky.1985) (“Implicit in the first prong of the Biggers test is a finding that the government had some hand in arranging the confrontation.”). 1987E.g., Wilson v. Commonwealth, 695 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Ky.1985) (“Implicit in the first prong of the Biggers test is a finding that the government had some hand in arranging the confrontation.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bracy
green
2 sentences2020See Alvarez, 145 Ariz. at 372 (considering the Biggers factors and finding identification reliable without analyzing the accuracy of the witness’ prior description); Bracy, 145 Ariz. at 531–32 (finding identification reliable despite inconsistencies in descriptions of the criminals). 2020See Alvarez, 145 Ariz. at 372 (considering the Biggers factors and finding identification reliable without analyzing the accuracy of the witness’ prior description); Bracy, 145 Ariz. at 531–32 (finding identification reliable despite inconsistencies in descriptions of the criminals). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Perry v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences2016In such circumstances, reliability is sufficiently tested “through the rights and opportunities generally designed for that purpose, notably, the presence of counsel at post indictment lineups, vigorous cross-examination, protective rules of evidence, and jury instructions on both the fallibility of eyewitness identification and the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Perry, 132 S.Ct. at 721 . 11132 When sufficient state action is established, a two-part test is used for determining the admissibility of identification testimony: “(1) whether the method or procedure use 2016In such circumstances, reliability is sufficiently tested “through the rights and opportunities generally designed for that purpose, notably, the presence of counsel at post indictment lineups, vigorous cross-examination, protective rules of evidence, and jury instructions on both the fallibility of eyewitness identification and the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Perry, 132 S.Ct. at 721 . 11132 When sufficient state action is established, a two-part test is used for determining the admissibility of identification testimony: “(1) whether the method or procedure use | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Sumner v. Mata
green
2 sentences2009Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591 , 597 & n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1303 , 71 L.Ed.2d 480 (1982) (discussing difference between factual findings on particular Biggers factors and ultimate conclusion whether facts state a constitutional violation). 2009Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591 , 597 & n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1303 , 71 L.Ed.2d 480 (1982) (discussing difference between factual findings on particular Biggers factors and ultimate conclusion whether facts state a constitutional violation). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Nordstrom
green
2 sentences2002Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. at 241 , 25 P.3d at 729 ¶ 24 (“Because the state action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment ... cannot be established, due process is inapposite.”) (citation omitted). 2002Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. at 241 , 25 P.3d at 729 ¶ 24 (“Because the state action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment ... cannot be established, due process is inapposite.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Shelley v. Kraemer
green
2 sentences2001Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). ¶ 25 Recognizing that shortcoming in his argument, the defendant argues that our opinion in State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576 , 832 P.2d 593 (1992), suggests that we require a Biggers analysis even absent an allegation that state action tainted an identification. 2001Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). ¶ 25 Recognizing that shortcoming in his argument, the defendant argues that our opinion in State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576 , 832 P.2d 593 (1992), suggests that we require a Biggers analysis even absent an allegation that state action tainted an identification. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Atwood
green
2 sentences2001Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). ¶ 25 Recognizing that shortcoming in his argument, the defendant argues that our opinion in State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576 , 832 P.2d 593 (1992), suggests that we require a Biggers analysis even absent an allegation that state action tainted an identification. 2001Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). ¶ 25 Recognizing that shortcoming in his argument, the defendant argues that our opinion in State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576 , 832 P.2d 593 (1992), suggests that we require a Biggers analysis even absent an allegation that state action tainted an identification. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.