8 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2017State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19-20 , 115 P.3d 601, 607-08 (2005). ¶5 Our supreme court has disapproved of the practice of holding unrecorded bench conferences. 2017State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19-20 , 115 P.3d 601, 607-08 (2005). ¶5 Our supreme court has disapproved of the practice of holding unrecorded bench conferences. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Anthonygreen2 sentences2022Id. 2017See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588 , 858 P.2d at 1191 ; see also Anthony, 218 Ariz. 439, ¶ 41 , 189 P.3d at 374 (noting difference between sufficiency-of-the-evidence and harmless error review). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2023Id. at 142, ¶ 21 . ¶23 A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to the same judge “throughout the entire proceedings against him.” State v. Jones, 6 Ariz. App. 26, 28 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pobletegreen1 sentence2022State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶8 Rogers argues the superior court erred by concluding he was barred from presenting his new PCR claim until this court had issued a decision in his earlier proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen2 sentences2017See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588 , 858 P.2d at 1191 ; see also Anthony, 218 Ariz. 439, ¶ 41 , 189 P.3d at 374 (noting difference between sufficiency-of-the-evidence and harmless error review). 2017See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588 , 858 P.2d at 1191 ; see also Anthony, 218 Ariz. 439, ¶ 41 , 189 P.3d at 374 (noting difference between sufficiency-of-the-evidence and harmless error review). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romerogreen1 sentence2017See Romero, 240 Ariz. 603, ¶ 13 , 381 P.3d at 303 . ¶21 We emphasize the state, not Smith, bears the burden of showing the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hydegreen2 sentences2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). 2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Rusty James Driscollgreen2 sentences2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). 2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crowleygreen2 sentences2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). 2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). 2016State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 32 , 41 P.3d 618, 629 (App.2002). ¶ 19 “[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule [is] to deter Fourth Amendment violations,” State v. Driscoll, 238 Ariz. 432, ¶ 11 , 361 P.3d 961, 963 (App.2015), in particular when “ ‘the police have engaged in *325 willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct,’ ” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 275 , 921 P.2d 655, 678 (1996), quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.