Legal Opinion

State v. Rivera

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 2005No. CR-04-0170-PRPublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BERCH, Justice.

¶ 1 We granted review to determine whether a plea agreement containing terms that require truthful testimony and an avowal that prior statements by the pleading defendant were true constitutes a “consistency agreement,” prohibited by our decision in State v. Fisher, 176 Ariz. 69, 859 P.2d 179 (1993) (Fisher III). We hold that it does not. We have jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-120.24 (2003).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In 1998, Michael Rivera, Mareario…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Hoffa v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. People v. FieldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. People v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  5. People v. GarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. STATE EX REL. FRANKLIN v. McBrideWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2009
  2. People v. BannisterIllinois Supreme Court · 2009
  3. People v. BannisterAppellate Court of Illinois · 2007
  4. Flack v. BallardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2017
  5. People v. CottonAppellate Court of Illinois · 2009

13 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