Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!

Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
   State Courts - Arizona - November 3 - November 26, 2004
  
McKaney v. Foreman, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0032-SA, SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, November 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In a capital murder case, defendant was not denied due process when the indictment did not allege the aggravating factors, as defendant was accorded sufficient notice under the rules of criminal procedure and had ample notice to prepare.

Search Cases for Free
  
State v. Estrada, 2 CA-CR 2003-0302, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, November 4, 2004, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Suppression of blood alcohol concentration test results was affirmed, as, when a person was receiving medical treatment against his or her will, the statutory exception allowing blood draws without a warrant did not apply.

Search Cases for Free
  
State v. Resendis-Felix, 2 CA-CR 2003-0114-PR, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 10, 2004, Decided , November 10, 2004, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
State v. Henderson, 1 CA-CR 03-0920, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, November 18, 2004, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Blakely error was not harmless because jury could have reasonably concluded differently than trial judge did on four of five factors justifying super-aggravated sentence for unlawful imprisonment. One substantial aggravating factor was not enough.

Search Cases for Free
  
State v. Ray, 2 CA-CR 2004-0136, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 22, 2004, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's order of intensive probation was not a sentence for the purposes of requirement of notification of attorney general. Therefore, trial court did not lack jurisdiction to consider probation revocation petition.

Search Cases for Free
  
In re Wilputte S., 1 CA-MH 04-0007, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, November 23, 2004, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant was scheduled for release, and State asserted he was a sexually violent person. Relevant statute provided that presumptive number of discharge reports was one. State was precluded from directing subsequent evaluations absent justification.

Search Cases for Free
  
State v. Miguel, 1 CA-CR 03-0867, 1 CA-CR 04-0174 (Consolidated), COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, November 23, 2004, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: The five-day period provided by statute for execution of a search warrant meant five consecutive calendar days, not five business days as argued by the State; trial court properly granted defendants' motion to suppress contraband and confessions.

Search Cases for Free
  
State ex rel. Mendez v. Am. Support Found., Inc., 1 CA-CV 03-0196, 1 CA-CV 03-0434 (Consolidated), COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, November 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In condemnation case, tax protest material was highly prejudicial and not probative, and court erred in allowing it to be admitted to expand range of values, as it could not be assumed such tax material was intended to reflect true market value.

Search Cases for Free
  
Back to Top
  


Copyright© 2011 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.