Search 

Court of Appeals

Division One

Criminal

ALL LINKS ON THIS PAGE ARE PDF FILES AND WILL REQUIRE ADOBE ACROBAT READER

 
December 19, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . .  1-CA-CR 05-1229 . . . . .. . . . . State v. Galvez


Did the trial court commit reversible error when it concluded that Galvez had substantially complied with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and dismissed the State’s indictment for failure to timely try Galvez on outstanding charges?

November 16, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 05-0520 . . . . . . . . . . State v. Hansen

Is A.R.S. § 13-804(D), which provides that a convicted person’s restitution payments to the 
clerk of the court shall not be stayed if the defendant files a notice of appeal, unconstitutional
because it conflicts with Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.6, which stays a sentence 
to pay restitution pending appeal?  

November 9, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 05-0733 . . . . . . . .  . . .  State v. McIntosh

Did the trial court commit reversible error by accepting a guilty verdict bearing the hand-written juror number on the signature line for the jury foreperson?

November 3, 2006 . . . . . . CR 05-1190 & CR 05-1191 (Consol.) . . . . State v. Londo

1.    Did the trial court err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress as untimely? 

2.     Should this court adopt the “rescue doctrine” or “private safety exception” to Miranda?  If so, did defendant’s admission meet the standard of admissibility under this doctrine? 

3.    Was defendant’s confession voluntary? 

October 31, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 04-0508 . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Price

1.  Did the trial court err in denying defendant a Dessureault instruction?

2.  Did the trial court err in denying his request for an instruction on a lesser-included offense?

3.  Did the trial court unconstitutionally aggravate defendant's sentences.

October 26, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 05-1240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Olmstead

If a court finds only mitigating factors and no aggravating factors, is the court obliged to impose a 
sentence that is lesser than the presumptive sentence?

September 14, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0573 . . . . . . . . . . State v. Parks

Under Crawford and Davis, did the police officer’s interrogation of Cory at the crime scene produce testimonial statements?

August 8, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0328 . . . . . . . . . State v. Munninger

Has the defendant met his burden of showing fundamental error in sentencing him when one of three aggravating factors should not have been used?   

May 18, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 04-0530 . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Booker

Does the exclusionary rule automatically apply to require suppression of the bong when there is no evidence the police illegally seized the bong for purposes of prosecution of any alleged crime they were investigating and for which the defendant was not charged?

April 20, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 04-0269 . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. King

1.    May statements made during a 9-1-1 call be "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)?

2. Were additional statements made by the victim to an investigating police officer "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)? 

March 23, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 04-0661 . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Gastelum

1.     Did the superior court erroneously rely on a prior felony conviction for sentence enhancement that was neither stipulated nor proved?

2.    Must a stipulated prior conviction comply with Criminal Rule 17.6?

3.     Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction of an appeal from a conviction and sentence when the sentence was enhanced by an admitted or stipulated prior conviction?

March 14, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 04-0770 . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Freitag

1.     Does Lawrence v. Texas extend constitutional protection to Defendant’s solicitation of an act of prostitution in violation of Phoenix City Ordinance?

2.   May the City of Phoenix impose fee on criminal appeals from its municipal courts?

February 23,  2005 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0987 . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Kuck

Is entitlement to a twelve-member jury evaluated on the basis of the maximum potential sentence at the time the jury begins its deliberations?

December 6, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 04-0755 . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Gaynor-Fonte

Can a defendant be charged with felony domestic violence under A.R.S. § 13-3601.02(A) if he has committed, but has not been convicted, of two prior domestic violence offenses within the last five years?

September 13, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 04-0589 . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Vandever

In a manslaughter and endangerment case in which the defendant admitted having been voluntarily intoxicated and to having violated the traffic laws, should evidence of his character and reputation for not being a reckless person and for liking his passenger have been admitted pursuant to Rule 404(a)(1)?

September 6, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 04-0435-PR . . . . . . . . . . State v. Ward

1. Does Blakely apply to all "Rule 32 of-right" post-conviction proceedings not yet final on direct review when Blakely was decided.

2. Does a defendant waive the right to a jury determination of aggravating factors for sentencing when he waives the right to a jury on the offenses charged?

August 4, 2005 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .  CR 03-0573 . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Parks

1.     Can an excited utterance be testimonial under  Crawford v. Washing,  541 U.S. 36 (2004)?

2.    Can police questioning during a field investigation constitute an interrogation under Crawford v. Washing,  541 U.S. 36 (2004)?

July 5, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0827-PRPC . . . . . . . State v. Febles

1.    Does Blakely apply retroactively to cases on collateral review whether such cases were final before or after Apprendi was decided? 

2.     Is Petitioner’s counsel ineffective for failing to raise an Apprendi claim on direct appeal? 


March 25, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 04-0027 . . . . . . . .  . . . State v. Storholm

Is a DUI defendant entitled to a second sample of breath in a prosecution based on breath alcohol content?

March 4, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Estrada

Does Blakely v. Washington entitle a defendant whose prior convictions constitute an aggravating circumstance to jury findings on the existence of any additional aggravating circumstances?

March 4, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0526 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Pitre

Does the presence of a Blakely-exempt or compliant factor permit the trial judge to find and consider all other aggravating factors in imposing a sentence beyond the sentence authorized by the verdict?

March 3, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-0079 . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Aguilar

Is an excited utterance made in the presence of and testified to by a lay witness the type of "testimonial statement" whose admissibility under Crawford v. Washington depends upon whether it was subject to a prior opportunity for cross-examination?

March 1, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 04-0242 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Cofield

Is a defendant sentenced for attempted child molestation, following revocation of his probation, entitled to presentence incarceration credit under A.R.S. § 13-709(B) for time spent detained at the Arizona State Hospital on probable cause that he is a sexually violent person (SVP)? 

February 22, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0187 PRPC . . . . . . . State v. Goracke

Should the prisoner mailbox rule, holding that a document is deemed filed by a pro se prisoner when delivered to proper prison authorities, apply to petitions for review by the Arizona Supreme Court?

January 27, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0305 . . . . . . . . .  State v. Pena

1. Was the conviction for aggravated assault supported by the evidence?

2. Did the superior court improperly consider statutory elements of the offense as aggravating factors?

3. Was the consideration of improper aggravating factors in sentencing harmless error?

January 20, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0328 . . . . . . . . . State v. Munninger

1. Is Blakely error waived if not raised in the superior court? 
2. Does a single proper aggravating factor permit affirmance of an aggravated sentence even when the sentencing judge relied on improper factors?
3. Was the reliance on improper aggravating factors harmless error? 

January 11, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-0591 . . . . . . . . . State v. Barraza

Does A.R.S. § 13-411 apply when a guest uses deadly physical force against a resident of the house?

December 16, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CR 03-0810 . . . . . . . . . . State v. Gatliff

Is a separate jury finding of dangerousness required by Blakely for arson of an occupied structure when dangerousness rests on the use of fire as a dangerous instrument? 

December 14, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0243 . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Berger

Does a mandatory minimum term of 200 years imprisonment for twenty offenses of possessing child pornography violate the state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection or the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment?

November 23, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0867 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Miguel/Tirado

Does the time-extending provision of Rule 1.3(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to the five-day period for execution of a search warrant provided by A.R.S. § 13-3918(A) so as to exclude weekends and holidays from the calculation of the five-day period?

November 18, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 03-0920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Henderson

Is Blakely error subject to a harmless error analysis?

November 4, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0728 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Martinez

1.    Was a natural life sentence for murder properly imposed?

2.    Were aggravated sentences for burglary and theft compliant with Blakely when some aggravating factors were found by the judge?

October 28, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .  State v. Kuntz

In deciding whether a foreign conviction requires registration, can the trial court consider facts not necessarily evidenced by the judgment of conviction?

October 26, 2004  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0640 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Williams

1. Did the trial court err in admitting into evidence prior acts of public sexual indecency pursuant to Rule 404(b)?

2. Was one of the prior acts too remote to be probative, and did the trial court commit fundamental error in allowing its admission?

3. Was one of the prior acts too dissimilar to the charged acts to be probative, and did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing its admission?

4. Did the trial court commit fundamental error in determining that the probative value of the prior bad acts outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice?

5. Do the provisions of Rule 404(c) apply to the charged crimes of public sexual indecency and public sexual indecency directed to a minor notwithstanding the fact that such offenses are not specifically listed in A.R.S. § 13-1420(C)?

6. Did the trial court err when it admitted the testimony of a probation officer concerning one of the prior bad acts?

7. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to strike and subsequent motion for mistrial concerning a detective witness indicating that he had arrested the defendant for one of the prior bad acts?

8. Was the evidence sufficient to support the defendant's convictions on the charged offenses?

October 21, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Miranda-Cabrera

1.    Must a defendant intend a result to target a child for purposes of A.R.S. § 13-604.01?

2.    Is it a violation of defendant's constitutional rights for a court to find and consider aggravating factors in imposing a mitigated sentence?

September 28, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-0832 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Garnica

Can there be accomplice liability for an offense that is based on a mens rea of recklessness?

September 28, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 02-0578 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Speers

Is it reversible error to not allow expert testimony regarding child interviews and to give a flight instruction when the defendant’s actions did not make him harder to find?

July 8, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0683 . . . . . . . . . . .  . . State v. McDermott

Does the word "luggage" in subsection (F) include a fanny pack, and if it does not, is subsection (F) as applied to subsection (A)(1) unconstitutionally vague?

June 29, 2004  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-1003PR . . . . . . . .  State v. Reinhardt

If a person is convicted for the first time of the personal possession of two controlled substances (methamphetamine and marijuana) and the offenses occurred simultaneously, does this constitute one strike or two strikes for sentencing purposes under Proposition 200?

June 22, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  CR 03-0606 . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Nguyen 

How does A.R.S. § 13-604.02(B), requiring consecutive sentences for new crimes committed while on probation, interact with Arizona's statutory and constitutional provision for a twelve-person jury

June 17, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-0364 . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Whelan


Is an unappealed suppression order binding on the state in a subsequent proceeding when there has been an intervening change in the law?

May 18, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0469 . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Nelson


Can an officer employed by the governing body of an Indian tribe and certified by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board conduct a brief stop and detention of a vehicle off the reservation?

May 4, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 03-0197 . . . . . . . . .  State v. Watkins


1.    May police momentarily detain a departing person who is a witness to a recently committed violent offense?

2.    May police frisk the person if he makes furtive movements to his waistband, as if to retrieve or hide a weapon?

3.    May police seize contraband discovered by "plain feel" in a frisk for weapons?

April  15, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .  CR 02-0937 . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Nieves


Is a defendant's confession that she smothered her child admissible when there is no other evidence
suggesting her child's death was the result of criminal conduct?

April 1, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  CR  02-0211 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Rivera


Is it reversible error to permit an accomplice witness who has entered a plea agreement containing a consistency clause to testify at trial under the belief that the consistency provision is enforceable? 

March 23, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 02-0739 .. . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Lucero

1.    Are results produced by GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) testing subject to a Frye 
hearing?

2.    Is a Frye hearing necessary to permit an expert to testify that defendant was driving while impaired?

3.    Did a jury instruction shift the burden of proof to defendant?

March 23, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 03-0138 . . . . . . . . .. . . .  State v. Windus

Is evidence of crimes committed after an illegal entry admissible when the officers did not
exploit their unlawful entry to provoke new and distinct criminal conduct?

March 18, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 02-0384 . . . . . . . . . . State v. Madrid


Are travel-related expenses incurred by the victim of a crime who voluntarily attends the 
the defendant's trial an item of "economic loss" for which the victim is entitled to receive 
pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-603(C)? 

March 4, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 02-0222 , , , , , , , ,  , State v. Vogel

Does A.R.S. § 13-415 trump A.R.S. § 13-404(B)(!) such that verbal provocation alone may justify
the use of physical force in self-defense by a defendant against whom the victim has committed 
previous acts of domestic violence? 

February 3, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 02-0960 . . . . . . . . .  State v. Long

Is the consecutive 20-year sentence imposed for Count One (sexual exploitation of a minor
under age 15) so grossly disproportionate to the defendant's crime as to constitute cruel
and unusual punishment and thus be violative of the 8th amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article 2, Section 15, of the Arizona Constitution?

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in imposing an aggravated sentence for the sexual
exploitation of a minor under the age of 15 conviction?

December 18, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 02-0808 . . . . .  . .  State v. Ontiveros


May a person be convicted of attempted second-degree murder under Arizona Law if he 
knows merely that his conduct will cause serious physical injury and does not intend or know
that his conduct will cause death?

December 11, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-0958 . . . .  . .  State v. Tsinnijinnie


Must a defendant convicted of sexual assault for conduct on one occasion and child molestation
of the same victim on another occasion be given consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences 
under A.R.S. § 13-604.01(K)?

December 2, 2003 . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-0971 . . . . . . . . . State v. Gonzales

Does the rebuttable presumption of receipt of notice authorized in A.R.S. § 28-3318(D) that applies
in the case of the suspension or revocation of a driver's license also apply in the case of the cancellation
of a driver's license?

November 6, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .  CR 02-0519 . . . .  . . . . . State v. Maldonado

Must the number of jurors be decided at the outset of the trial upon a calculation of the maximum
authorized sentence faced by the defendant?

October 30, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 02-0456 . . . . . . . . . . .  State v. Cabanas-Salgado

In a felony murder prosecution based on the underlying felony of transportation of cocaine for
sale, does the state have to prove that the defendant knew the amount of cocaine being transported
equaled or exceeded the statutory threshold amount?

October 30, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .  CR 02-0735 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Arbolida

Does A.R.S. 13-702(G) apply to defendants who have an historical prior felony conviction?

September 2, 2003................................CR 02-0963.........................State v. Akins

Does A.R.S. § 28-1595(C) adequately specify the evidence of identity that a passenger
must provide if an officer reasonably believes the passenger to have violated a provision
of the traffic code?

August 28, 2003....................................CR 02-0278...........................State v. Torres

1.  Must a trial court decide a motion to change counsel?

2.  Must a trial court conduct an inquiry into the basis of allegations that a change of 
counsel is needed?

August 26, 2003.....................................CR 02-0363.......................State v. Story


May a requirement of community service hours be imposed as a condition of probation
on a first-time offender sentenced under Proposition 200?

August 21, 2003.....................................CR 02-0865.....................State v. Keener


1.  Does A.R.S. section 13-3883(B), which permits a police officer to stop and detain
a person for a traffic violation committed in the officer's presence, override A.R.S.
section 13-3883(A)(4), which permits an officer to make a warrantless arrest on
probable cause for a misdemeanor traffic offense not committed in the officer's presence?

2.  Can a court consider the collective knowledge of all of the officers involved in an
investigation in determining whether probable cause existed for a warrantless arrest when
the offense for which the accused is arrested is a misdemeanor rather than a felony?

August 12, 2003.....................................CR 02-0713.....................State v. Hazlett

Is A.R.S. § 13-3553 unconstitutionally overbroad by encompassing expression
protected by the First Amendment and Article 2, Section 6, of the Arizona Constitution?

July 29, 2003...........................................CR 02-0422...................State v. Smyers


Whether a defendant can make a reasoned decision whether to testify and face 
impeachment with a prior conviction when the trial court improperly sanitizes the
admission of that conviction.

July 22, 2003.............................................CR 02-0432..................State v. Darelli

Can a trial judge effectively set a plea cut-off date by rejecting any plea (except a
plea to the charges) after a certain time?

July 3, 2003............................................CR 02-0698......................State v. Soltero


Is the 2001 amendment to A.R.S. section 28-1382(A), which was enacted with an
emergency clause and which reduced the alcohol concentration limit for extreme DUI
from 0.18 to 0.15, constitutional?


June 26, 2003..........................................CR 02-0592......................State v. Reyna


Can the so-called "automobile exception" to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement
apply under the Arizona Constitution in the absence of exigent circumstances?


June 17, 2003............................................CR01-0204..................State v. Johnson


If a defendant intends to shoot and injure a police officer and fires one shot which does
hit the officer, may the defendant's intent be "transferred" under A.R.S. § 13-203(B) to
supply the element of intent necessary for the crime of aggravated assault on the
bystanders?

June 12, 2003.............................................CR 01-0783....................State v. Beasley

1.  Did the swabbing of a defendant's hands while in police custody in order to perform
a gunshot residue test ("GSR") constitute a search?

2.  Did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to "sanitize" priors used to impeach a
testifying defendant pursuant to Rule 609 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence when those
priors were the same as, or similar to, the crimes for which the defendant was on trial?

June 5, 2003...............................................CR 01-1005............................State v. Siner


May the doctrine of transferred intent, A.R.S. § 13-203(B), be applied to the offense of
drive-by-shooting?

May 29, 2003.............................................CR 02-0073.......................State v. Gallagher


Should a first-time offender under Proposition 200, convicted of one count of possession
of drugs for personal use and another count of possession of drug paraphernalia (associated
with personal use) arising from the same occasion, be sentenced under Proposition 200 as
though he has one "strike" or two strikes"?

May 29, 2003.............................................CR 02-0115.........................State v. Sullivan

Is an error in an instruction given pursuant to State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592, 898 P.2d 970
(1995), structural error or is it error that is subject to a harmless error analysis?

May 13, 2003.............................................CR 00-0326............................State v. Sanders


1.  Is aggravated assault committed by a knowing touching with intent to injure, insult or
provoke a different offense than aggravated assault committed by creating a reasonable
apprehension of imminent physical injury such that an amendment from one to the other
changes the nature of the offense in violation of Rule 13.5(b) and the Sixth Amendment?

2.  Should the last sentence of Rule 13.5(b) providing that the charging document should be
deemed amended to conform to the evidence presented during trial be limited to amendments
that are merely formal or technical?

April 24, 2003............................................CR 02-0007............................State v. Davis


1.  Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting defendant to present
evidence of third-party culpability.

2.  Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request for a Willets
instruction.

April 11, 2003...........................................CR 02-0190 RT......................State v. Sucharew


1.  May PowerPoint presentation software be utilized in an opening statement, 
notwithstanding the absence of authority for same in Rule 19, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure?

2.  Does a waiver of the attorney-client privilege occur when the client, a minor, meets with
his lawyer in the presence of the minor's parents?

April 1, 2003.............................................CR 02-0448...........................State v. Kaiser


Is Scottsdale City Code Section 19-13 unconstitutionally vague and overbroad?

April 1, 2003.............................................CR 02-0002........................... State v. Mutschler


Is Phoenix City Code 23-54, which prohibits the operation of a live sex act business,
constitutional?

March 12, 2003....................................CR02-0431RT...............................State v. 
Lucero


Does reaching a place of temporary safety presumptively terminate the immediate flight from
an armed robbery such that a death occurring thereafter did not occur during immediate flight
from the robbery?

February 25, 2003......................................CR 02-0186 .................................... State v. Bronson


Whether a violation of the confrontation clause was harmless?

January 30, 2003  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 01-0447  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Mitchell

May a suspect who has already been handcuffed commit the crime of resisting arrest?

January 28, 2003  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CR 01-1069  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Olcan

Does a defendant have the right to a private blood draw/test in addition to the blood draw/test administered by the State?

November 12, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0909 RT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Moore

Are a defendant's confrontation rights violated when telephonic testimony is admitted at trial and the State has not demonstrated a compelling reason why the telephonic testimony should be substituted for in-person testimony?

November 7, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0392  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Patterson

What are the standards for re-opening evidence when a jury is deliberating but not at an impasse?

October 22, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0789  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Morrison

Is the audiotape of a telephone conversation between defendant and minor victim, made by minor's mother without defendant's or minor's consent, admissible under A.R.S. § 13-3005 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511?

October 17, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0827  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Dean

If police officers attempt to stop and arrest the driver of a vehicle and the driver returns to his driveway and enters the house, can the police search the vehicle incident to the arrest of the driver if he is arrested in the house two and a half hours later?

October 1, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-1091  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Juarez

Does Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution grant defendants charged with possessory crimes "automatic standing" to challenge the unlawfulness of a search or seizure?

September 24, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0583 PR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Helmer

Is failure to register as a convicted sex offender a continuing offense?

September 24, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-1015  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Thues

Does a defendant's previous conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Proposition 200 offense, constitute a historical prior felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement?

July 23, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0876 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Carrasco

Who is a person qualified to draw blood pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1388?

July 9, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 00-0781  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Paxson

1.  Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it precluded as "speculative" the testimony of an expert witness for a criminal defendant that the probability of the occurrence versus non-occurrence of a superseding event was "equally unknown?"

2.  In a vehicular manslaughter case, may the automobile in which the victim was a passenger qualify as a "dangerous instrument?"

July 2, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 00-0792  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Meza

Was the suppression of breath test evidence an excessive sanction in response to the Phoenix Crime Lab's prolonged failure to provide court-ordered discovery regarding tests performed on the breath-testing machine?

June 27, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0726  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Joachim

Must a trial court grant a defendant's motion to suppress evidence at trial if a justice of the peace sitting as a magistrate has previously granted defendant's motion to controvert a search warrant?

June 27, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0453  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Schaffer

May a prosthetic device be a "dangerous instrument" within the meaning of the aggravated assault statute, A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2)?

June 4, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0350  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Martinez

Does the burden shifting provision of A.R.S. § 13-205(A) apply to the defense of justification-crime prevention under § 13-411(A) when considered in light of the exemption in § 13-205(B) that pertains to the presumption under § 13-411(C)? 

May 30, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 01-0605  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Sorkhabi

Is A.R.S. § 13-2508(A) a victimless offense?  If not, is the police officer in this matter a victim?

May 23, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 00-0654  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Christian

Can a prior conviction for personal drug possession in an amount below the "threshold" constitute a "historical prior felony conviction" under A.R.S. § 13-604(v)(1)?

May 9, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 00-0996  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Schinzel

Did the trial court err by refusing to suppress defendant's answers to police inquiries made after his arrest but prior to advising him of his Miranda rights and concerning an offense unrelated to the one underlying the arrest?

April 30, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0631 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Hylton

Under Proposition 200 and A.R.S. § 13-901.01(E), may a trial court reinstate a Proposition 200 probation violator on unsupervised probation for only one year, even though his original standard probation term was for three years?

April 23, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0226  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Cabrera

Do Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 1.3 apply to Arizona Revised Statutes section 28-1385 to extend the fifteen-day statutory deadline in which to request an administrative review of a driver's license suspension to the following business day?

April 9, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 01-0418  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Tousignant

Whether a defendant who has violated his mandatory probation under Proposition 200 may choose to reject any further probation?

March 28, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 01-0280  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Flores

Was the state required to present evidence permitting a reasonable inference of the "sale" element necessary to establish the corpus delecti before the trial court could properly admit Flores' statements of intent to sell or transport drugs?

March 28, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 01-0153  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Rosas-Hernandez

Does an individual who pleads guilty and has been sentenced retain the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify during the time period in which the individual may file an initial petition for post-conviction relief?

January 24, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 00-0297  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. McKeon

Does A.R.S. § 13-503 preclude a criminal jury from considering, as relevant to the question of requisite state of mind, whether a criminal defendant was temporarily intoxicated as a result of the non-abusive consumption of prescription drugs?

January 22, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 01-0333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. McMahon

Is A.R.S. § 28-708(A) unconstitutionally vague?

January 17, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CR 99-0719 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Blackman

1.  Did the trial court wrongfully strike for cause a qualified prospective juror and fail to strike an unqualified juror?

2.  Did the trial court err in not severing Defendant's trial from those of other co-defendants and denying a motion for mistrial after a co-defendant's incriminating statement was admitted into evidence?

3.  Does the prosecutor's alleged misconduct during closing argument require reversal?

January 10, 2002  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CR 00-0812 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Cox

1.  Does fundamental error exist when the trial court imposes a lawful sentence but uses an incorrect sentencing range?

2.  Can a § 13-604.02(B) allegation (that defendant committed the present felony while on parole from a prior felony) be decided by the trial judge rather than a jury?

October 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CR 00-0621 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Evenson

Does A.R.S. § 13-3513, which prohibits the sale of materials harmful to minors from vending machines, violate the First Amendment?

October 25, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CR 00-0439 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Thompson

Is A.R.S. § 13-1101(1), Arizona's premeditation statute void for vagueness?

October 16, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CR 00-0828 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Seyrafi

Is § 18-11(b) of the Scottsdale City Code unconstitutional because it contains an irrebuttable presumption?

October 2, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   CR 00-0801 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Sierra-Cervantes

Did the instruction on self-defense create fundamental error?

September 25, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 00-0761 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Boyd

Does A.R.S. § 28-1381 (driving while there is a dangerous drug in the driver's body) violate due process as applied to this individual since the statute fails to give a person notice that his ingestion of a legal product also constituted the ingestion of a dangerous drug because as the legal product is processed by the human body it metabolizes into that dangerous drug?

September 20, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 00-0508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Hensley

1.  Does A.R.S.  § 13-604.04(A), requiring the state to allege prior to trial that a defendant committed a violent crime, apply to Proposition 200 offenses?

2.  Did the trial court err by terminating the defendant's probation after he violated its terms rather than continuing it and imposing additional terms?

September 18, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  CR 00-0821RT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Ibanez

Did the trial court err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss a prospective juror for cause?  

September 18, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 00-0522 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Roman

Does Proposition 200 (A.R.S. § 13-901.01) apply to promoting prison contraband?

September 4, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 00-0269 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Gross

Should the defendant's sentence be vacated because the trial court, rather than the jury, determined that the defendant was released on bond for a separate felony offense when the defendant committed the crime for which he was convicted?

August 14, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 00-0763 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Hernandez

Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment?  No.

July 17, 2001  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 00-0495  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Tschilar

Whether the finding that the kidnapping victims were voluntarily released unharmed, a determination resolving whether the offense is a class 2 or class 4 felony, is a factual decision for the jury according to the rationale of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)?

June 10, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 99-0852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Garcia

Must uncharged act evidence be screened for admissibility pursuant to Rules 403 and 404(c) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence even when the evidence is offered to establish that a defendant charged with a sexual offense had a lewd disposition toward a particular victim?

June 5, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 99-0897 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Weekley

Did the warrantless search of defendants' hotel room violate the Fourth Amendment (1) given prior private search by hotel management, and/or (2) did the defendants have an ongoing privacy interest in the room following the noon checkout time?

May 24, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 00-0497 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State v. Ward

May a defendant who has been found guilty except insane for two criminal offenses be committed to the Arizona State Hospital for consecutive terms pursuant to A.R.S. sections 13-502(D) and 13-3994?

April 3, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0870 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Farley

1. Does A.R.S. section 13-205(A), which assigns the burden of proving justification to the defendant, violate the Arizona Due Process Clause?

2. Did defendant invite error by requesting an erroneous instruction on the use of deadly force in defending another?

March 29, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 00-0457 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Skiba

Does the aggravated DUI statute only require that the driver operate her vehicle while her license is restricted, rather than in violation of a specific restriction, at the time of arrest for DUI?

February 22, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0792 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Bomar

Should presentence incarceration credit apply to reduce the commitment term of one found guilty except insane?

February 13, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0567 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Lucas

When a lawyer gives both a valid reason and an invalid discriminatory reason for a peremptory strike, does the invalid reason taint the entire juror selection process?

February 6, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Pereyra

Does Proposition 200 (A.R.S. section 13-901.01) apply to personal possession of a controlled substance within a drug free school zone?

January 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Derello

May the court consider a prior felony conviction more than ten years old, but within ten years after subtracting time spent while incarcerated on other convictions, in sentence enhancement?

January 23, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Benak

Must the State allege before trial, pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-604.04, that a defendant has been convicted of a violent crime that would render him or her ineligible for probation pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-901.01(B)?

January 4, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0781 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Purcell

Does Batson extend to a prospective juror's religious membership or affiliation as opposed to personal beliefs premised on religious convictions?

December 26, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-1041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Logan

1. Must the jury be instructed that defendant "acted without lawful authority" when charged with theft by control of property?

2. Was it error to instruct the jury that it should not consider the validity of documents related to the dealings between defendant and victim?

3. Was it error to allow a detective to testify as an expert on "elderly abuse" regarding characteristics of victims and perpetrators?

December 21, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0840 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Anderson

A.R.S. section 13-2923(A)(1) proscribes conduct that would cause, and in fact does cause, a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety. Subsection (A)(2) of the statute proscribes conduct that would cause, and in fact does cause, a reasonable person to fear physical injury or death. Is fearing for one's own safety the equivalent of fearing physical injury or death?

December 21, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0255 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Canion

When a defendant has been charged with premeditated murder and, in the alternative, felony murder, and the jury finds him guilty of both felony murder and of a lesser-included offense of premeditated murder, does the trial court err by accepting the verdicts and sentencing him only for the felony murder?

November 30, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 99-0518 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Foster

Did the trial court err by failing to preclude defendant's statements to his "jailhouse lawyer" pursuant to State v. Melendez, 172 Ariz. 68, 834 P.2d 154 (1992)?

November 14, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 99-0988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Kessler

Is a probation condition that petitioner have "no contact with any child" unconstitutionally vague or overbroad?

November 2, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 99-0937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Smith

Do the probationary reinstatement requirements of A.R.S. section 13-901.01 apply to a person whose probation violation consisted of a drug use offense within the ambit of the statute, but whose original offense -- the one for which he was first put on probation -- was a drug sale outside the ambit of the statute?

October 31, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Beasley

Can a defendant's juvenile dispositions entered prior to the effective date of amendments to A.R.S. section 8-207(B) (allowing juvenile dispositions to be used in subsequent criminal cases) be used to find him a "chronic felony offender" pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-501(B) and subject to trial as an adult?

October 26, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0324 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Welch

Is conviction for the possession of chemicals and equipment for manufacturing dangerous drugs a lesser-included offense of manufacturing dangerous drugs?

October 26, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Roark

Can invalid portions of a search warrant be severed from valid portions?

October 17, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0394 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Samano

Must a defendant target, focus upon, or prey upon a child younger than fifteen in order for the dangerous crimes against children sentencing enhancement to lawfully be applied?

September 28, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Miranda

1. Did the trial court err by precluding evidence of the victim's criminal convictions?

2. Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that disorderly conduct under A.R.S. section 13-2904(A)(6) is a lesser-included offense of the two aggravated assaults charged against him?

3. Did the trial court err by imposing consecutive sentences for the convictions?

4. Because only two victims were allegedly disturbed, did the defendant's convictions for three counts of disturbing the peace violate his right to be free from double jeopardy?

5. Did the trial court grant the defendant the correct amount of pre-sentence incarceration credit?

September 26, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Lopez

May the police, incident to an arrest of a driver, search the pockets of a passenger's pants packed in a backpack that is found in the vehicle's passenger compartment, even though the police have no indication that either weapons or evidence of the suspected offense are contained in the pockets?

September 26, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 97-0551-PR . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Donald

1. May a defendant base a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel upon the assertion that he rejected a favorable plea bargain as a result of deficient advice by his lawyer, who failed to properly evaluate the relative merits of the offer compared to the defendant's chances at trial?

2. Does the trial court have the power to fashion a remedy for such an injury if, after rejecting the plea offer, the defendant received a fair trial?

3. Would it violate separation of powers if, in the exercise of remedial authority under such circumstances, the trial court ordered the State to reinstate the original plea agreement?

September 14, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0882 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Alawy

Is the Mesa City Ordinance proscribing the residential use of a building zoned for business or industrial purposes vague or overbroad?

August 31, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0896 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Wood

Must there be an ongoing custody proceeding before a person can be charged with custodial interference under A.R.S. section 13-1302(A)(2)?

August 31, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0730 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Petrak

Does there need to be a nexus between a weapon and drugs for A.R.S. section 13-3102(A)(8)?

August 29, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0329 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Carlisle

Does the absence of an actual victim on a conviction for attempted sexual conduct with a minor mean that the crime cannot be designated a dangerous crime against children in the second degree?

July 25, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR 99-0136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Thompson

Did the legislature intend that the sentence enhancement schedule in section 13-702.02 apply to all Hannah-prior situations, or to just the typical situation, in which offenses were consolidated for trial?

July 13, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Gomez

Although a vehicular passenger lacks standing to raise a Fourth Amendment objection to a search of the vehicle, does such a passenger have standing to object to an investigative stop of the vehicle?

July 3, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0342 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Watson

Does Phoenix City Code chapter 39, article 2, section 39-7(A), prohibiting accumulation of garbage, debris, rubble, etc., on exterior premises or vacant land violate substantive due process?

June 8, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CR 99-0293 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State v. Martinez

Did the trial court err in substituting two excused, alternate jurors after two deliberating jurors were discharged for misconduct?