possession test in Arizona

2020See Carpenter, 176 Ariz. at 487 , 489–90 (requiring a defendant to request police reports under Rule 15.1 because such records were within the control of the State); Wells, 231 Ariz. at 526 ¶ 2, 527 ¶ 7, 528 ¶ 10 (providing that under Rule 15.2(g), a court may order disclosure of witness interviews in the possession of defense counsel to the state).

2014See Micheli, 487 F.2d at 431 (1st Cir.1973) (noting that “[The possession test] has the virtue of precision”); State v. Leiper, 145 N.H. 233 , 761 A.2d 458, 462 (2000) (finding that the possession test minimizes “the potential for fraud and gamesmanship during the execution of search warrants when parties not named in the warrant are present at the location of a search”); Reid, 77 P.3d at 1140 (observing that courts that have adopted the possession test “have emphasized its simplicity and clarity”).

2014See Micheli, 487 F.2d at 431 (1st Cir.1973) (noting that “[The possession test] has the virtue of precision”); State v. Leiper, 145 N.H. 233 , 761 A.2d 458, 462 (2000) (finding that the possession test minimizes “the potential for fraud and gamesmanship during the execution of search warrants when parties not named in the warrant are present at the location of a search”); Reid, 77 P.3d at 1140 (observing that courts that have adopted the possession test “have emphasized its simplicity and clarity”).

2014See State v. Nabarro, 55 Haw. 583 , 525 P.2d 573 (1974).

2014See State v. Nabarro, 55 Haw. 583 , 525 P.2d 573 (1974).

2014See United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177, 181-82 (D.C.Cir.1976) (search of a shoulder bag that was being worn was improper); United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977, 979 (D.C.Cir.1973) (search of purse resting separately from its owner, was not “worn” and therefore the search was proper); State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 , 77 P.3d 1134, 1143 (2003) (search of defendant’s jacket that was near him, but not in his possession was proper); State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (search of purse not in possession of visitor was proper). ¶ 11 Other jurisdictions have rejected the posse

2014See United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177, 181-82 (D.C.Cir.1976) (search of a shoulder bag that was being worn was improper); United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977, 979 (D.C.Cir.1973) (search of purse resting separately from its owner, was not “worn” and therefore the search was proper); State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 , 77 P.3d 1134, 1143 (2003) (search of defendant’s jacket that was near him, but not in his possession was proper); State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (search of purse not in possession of visitor was proper). ¶ 11 Other jurisdictions have rejected the posse

2014See United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442 (11th Cir.1990) (concluding that the relationship test was “more reasonable” than the possession test and holding that officers acted within scope of a premises warrant by searching purse of a person who lived at the premises but fled as officers arrived); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F.2d 283 (9th Cir.1988) (finding that the co-owner of business searched with valid warrant had a sufficient relationship to the premises to allow police to search briefcase); Giwa, 831 F.2d at 545 (concluding that the search of defendant’s bag was appropriate because h

2014See United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442 (11th Cir.1990) (concluding that the relationship test was “more reasonable” than the possession test and holding that officers acted within scope of a premises warrant by searching purse of a person who lived at the premises but fled as officers arrived); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F.2d 283 (9th Cir.1988) (finding that the co-owner of business searched with valid warrant had a sufficient relationship to the premises to allow police to search briefcase); Giwa, 831 F.2d at 545 (concluding that the search of defendant’s bag was appropriate because h

2014This test was first applied in United States v. Teller, 397 F.2d 494 (7th Cir.1968), which involved a premises warrant that did not name the defendant.

2014See id. at 497-98 . ¶ 10 Several jurisdictions have adopted the possession test.

2014Compare Johnson, 475 F.2d at 979 (finding warrant authorized search of purse on coffee table beside the couch where the defendant was sitting), Reid, 77 P.3d at 1143 (finding warrant authorized the search of defendant’s jacket that was not in his “actual physical possession”), and Jackson, 873 P.2d at 1169 (finding warrant authorized search of a purse “not in defendant’s physical possession when *300 it was searched”), with Reyes, 273 Cal.Rptr. at 65 (finding a warrant did not authorize the search of clothing placed in the bathroom while defendant was showering because it was “an extension of

2014See United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177, 181-82 (D.C.Cir.1976) (search of a shoulder bag that was being worn was improper); United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977, 979 (D.C.Cir.1973) (search of purse resting separately from its owner, was not “worn” and therefore the search was proper); State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 , 77 P.3d 1134, 1143 (2003) (search of defendant’s jacket that was near him, but not in his possession was proper); State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (search of purse not in possession of visitor was proper). ¶ 11 Other jurisdictions have rejected the posse

2014Compare Johnson, 475 F.2d at 979 (finding warrant authorized search of purse on coffee table beside the couch where the defendant was sitting), Reid, 77 P.3d at 1143 (finding warrant authorized the search of defendant’s jacket that was not in his “actual physical possession”), and Jackson, 873 P.2d at 1169 (finding warrant authorized search of a purse “not in defendant’s physical possession when *300 it was searched”), with Reyes, 273 Cal.Rptr. at 65 (finding a warrant did not authorize the search of clothing placed in the bathroom while defendant was showering because it was “an extension of

2014See United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177, 181-82 (D.C.Cir.1976) (search of a shoulder bag that was being worn was improper); United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977, 979 (D.C.Cir.1973) (search of purse resting separately from its owner, was not “worn” and therefore the search was proper); State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 , 77 P.3d 1134, 1143 (2003) (search of defendant’s jacket that was near him, but not in his possession was proper); State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (search of purse not in possession of visitor was proper). ¶ 11 Other jurisdictions have rejected the posse

2014See Micheli, 487 F.2d at 431 (1st Cir.1973) (noting that “[The possession test] has the virtue of precision”); State v. Leiper, 145 N.H. 233 , 761 A.2d 458, 462 (2000) (finding that the possession test minimizes “the potential for fraud and gamesmanship during the execution of search warrants when parties not named in the warrant are present at the location of a search”); Reid, 77 P.3d at 1140 (observing that courts that have adopted the possession test “have emphasized its simplicity and clarity”).

2014See United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177, 181-82 (D.C.Cir.1976) (search of a shoulder bag that was being worn was improper); United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977, 979 (D.C.Cir.1973) (search of purse resting separately from its owner, was not “worn” and therefore the search was proper); State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 , 77 P.3d 1134, 1143 (2003) (search of defendant’s jacket that was near him, but not in his possession was proper); State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (search of purse not in possession of visitor was proper). ¶ 11 Other jurisdictions have rejected the posse

2014See United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177, 181-82 (D.C.Cir.1976) (search of a shoulder bag that was being worn was improper); United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977, 979 (D.C.Cir.1973) (search of purse resting separately from its owner, was not “worn” and therefore the search was proper); State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 , 77 P.3d 1134, 1143 (2003) (search of defendant’s jacket that was near him, but not in his possession was proper); State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (search of purse not in possession of visitor was proper). ¶ 11 Other jurisdictions have rejected the posse

2014See United States v. Branch, 545 F.2d 177, 181-82 (D.C.Cir.1976) (search of a shoulder bag that was being worn was improper); United States v. Johnson, 475 F.2d 977, 979 (D.C.Cir.1973) (search of purse resting separately from its owner, was not “worn” and therefore the search was proper); State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 , 77 P.3d 1134, 1143 (2003) (search of defendant’s jacket that was near him, but not in his possession was proper); State v. Jackson, 873 P.2d 1166, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (search of purse not in possession of visitor was proper). ¶ 11 Other jurisdictions have rejected the posse

2014Compare Johnson, 475 F.2d at 979 (finding warrant authorized search of purse on coffee table beside the couch where the defendant was sitting), Reid, 77 P.3d at 1143 (finding warrant authorized the search of defendant’s jacket that was not in his “actual physical possession”), and Jackson, 873 P.2d at 1169 (finding warrant authorized search of a purse “not in defendant’s physical possession when *300 it was searched”), with Reyes, 273 Cal.Rptr. at 65 (finding a warrant did not authorize the search of clothing placed in the bathroom while defendant was showering because it was “an extension of

2007Although Perko testified that she told this to Bonds and Lyle, both deputies disputed that assertion in their testimony. ¶ 8 The jury convicted Cox of three counts of misconduct involving weapons, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3102(A)(4) (2001). 1 The judge found that Cox had been convicted of two prior felonies 2 and sentenced him to substantially mitigated, concurrent prison terms of six years on each count. ¶ 9 Cox appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court erred by refusing to give a possessio

2007Although Perko testified that she told this to Bonds and Lyle, both deputies disputed that assertion in their testimony. ¶ 8 The jury convicted Cox of three counts of misconduct involving weapons, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3102(A)(4) (2001). 1 The judge found that Cox had been convicted of two prior felonies 2 and sentenced him to substantially mitigated, concurrent prison terms of six years on each count. ¶ 9 Cox appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court erred by refusing to give a possessio

1998See id. ¶ 19 In Perry , the court relied on legislative intent, 340 S.E.2d at 460 , and we do not, because the lesser-included offense analysis focuses on the elements of the offenses. ¶20 In Rogers , defendant was charged with transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana based on the fact that he drove a car while his passengers smoked marijuana. 95 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 486 P.2d at 131 .

1998See id. ¶ 19 In Perry , the court relied on legislative intent, 340 S.E.2d at 460 , and we do not, because the lesser-included offense analysis focuses on the elements of the offenses. ¶20 In Rogers , defendant was charged with transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana based on the fact that he drove a car while his passengers smoked marijuana. 95 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 486 P.2d at 131 .

1998See id. ¶ 19 In Perry , the court relied on legislative intent, 340 S.E.2d at 460 , and we do not, because the lesser-included offense analysis focuses on the elements of the offenses. ¶20 In Rogers , defendant was charged with transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana based on the fact that he drove a car while his passengers smoked marijuana. 95 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 486 P.2d at 131 .

1998See id. ¶ 19 In Perry , the court relied on legislative intent, 340 S.E.2d at 460 , and we do not, because the lesser-included offense analysis focuses on the elements of the offenses. ¶20 In Rogers , defendant was charged with transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana based on the fact that he drove a car while his passengers smoked marijuana. 95 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 486 P.2d at 131 .

1997At trial, defendant objected to part two of the possession instruction on the ground that it did not adequately reflect the legal standard for constructive possession set forth in State v. Villalobos Alvarez, 155 Ariz. 244, 245 , 745 P.2d 991, 992 (App. 1987).

1997At trial, defendant objected to part two of the possession instruction on the ground that it did not adequately reflect the legal standard for constructive possession set forth in State v. Villalobos Alvarez, 155 Ariz. 244, 245 , 745 P.2d 991, 992 (App. 1987).