State v. Hackman
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EHRLICH, Judge.
The state appeals from the trial court’s order granting the motion of Daniel Hack-man (“defendant”) to suppress the testimony of Calvin Graeb. The court found that a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel necessitated its action. We conclude that the independent-source doctrine is applicable to certain information procured by the prosecution. Accordingly and for the reasons which follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A woman reported that she had been sexually assaulted by her former…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. BoggsArizona Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. RosengrenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- State v. SanchezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- State v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- In Re Ilono H.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.