Legal Opinion

State v. Bejarano

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided December 12, 2008No. 2 CA-CR 2008-0073PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ESPINOSA, Judge.

¶ 1 Before trial, appellee Anthony Bejarano filed a motion pursuant to Rule 15.7, Ariz. R.Crim. P., to preclude the state’s witnesses from testifying if the state did not timely comply with its disclosure obligations. The trial court eventually granted that motion as to one key witness, finding the state had failed to arrange a pretrial interview of that witness and that precluding the witness was an appropriate sanction. Following this order, the trial court declined Bejarano’s request to dismiss the case with prejudice but granted the state’s motion to dismiss without…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. State v. SchrockArizona Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. State v. RodriguezArizona Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  2. State v. MohajerinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  3. State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett HansenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  4. Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  5. Anderson v. VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOLCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012

23 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