Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that under § 28-1381(A)(2), whether the driver was impaired does not matter—the only pertinent questions are whether the alcohol concentration exceeded 0.08 and the reading was taken within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle
• explaining that under § 28-1381(A)(2), whether the driver was impaired does not matter — the only pertinent questions are whether the alcohol concentration exceeded 0.08 and the reading was taken within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle
• explaining that under § 28-1381(A)(2), whether the driver was impaired State v. Gomez, 212 Ariz. 55, 60 ¶ 28, 127 P.3d 873, 878 (2006) (citing Hayes v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264, 272, 872 P.2d 668, 676 (1994)). 8 STATE V. HARRIS (SHILGEVORKYAN
• stating the superior court has “considerable discretion” in making 403 determinations
• “Trial courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether to exclude evidence under [Rule 403].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).