Legal Opinion

State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 2017No. CR-16-0286-PRPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHIEF JUSTICE BALES,

opinion of the Court:

V 1 Arizona Rule of Evidence 410(a)(4) requires a court to exclude statements made by a defendant during plea discussions with a prosecutor if the discussions do not result in a guilty plea. This case concerns whether statements made in furtherance of a deferred prosecution agreement are protected by Rule 410(a)(4). We hold that this evidentiary rule does not apply to discussions about deferred prosecution and that a knowing waiver of its provisions does not require specifically referencing the rule.

I

¶ 2 In 2013, a private security guard found Dustin…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. United States v. MezzanattoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. State v. TuckerArizona Supreme Court · 2007
  4. United States v. Walter LevyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
  5. State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.Arizona Supreme Court · 1980

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. James Clayton JohnsonArizona Supreme Court · 2019
  2. State of Arizona v. Darren Lee WinegardnerArizona Supreme Court · 2018
  3. J v. v. Hon blair/morrisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2023
  4. Fisher v. Rondo PoolsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
  5. Fisk v. HurricaneCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API