Legal Opinion

Simpson v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 14, 2016No. Nos. 1 CA-SA 15-0292, 1 CA-SA 15-0295PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SWANN, Judge:

¶ 1 These special actions require us to determine the constitutional minimum requirements for bail hearings when a statute makes certain serious offenses nonbailable. The petitioners were each charged with sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 15 and were denied bail under A.R.S. § 13-3961(A)(3). We do not hold that the petitioners were entitled to bail, but that they were entitled to hearings at which the judges could consider whether any release conditions could protect the victims and the community.

¶ 2 In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Demore v. KimSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. Murphy v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Foucha v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Simpson v. Miller ex rel. County of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  2. State v. WeinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2017
  3. Jason Donald simpson/joe Paul Martinez v. Hons. miller/steinle/stateArizona Supreme Court · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API