 |
|
 |
|
|
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!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
