State v. Garcia-Quintana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that expert testimony on the methods used by drug trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs across the desert was permissible modus operandi testimony, not impermissible drug courier profile evidence
• noting that modus operan-di evidence “focuses on the usual patterns or methods used by a criminal gang or organization to commit a crime [,]\ and is \properly admitted to assist the jury, [as the trier of fact,] in understanding the modus operandi of a drug trafficking organization”
• applying fundamental-error review “[b]ecause the court never ruled on Defendant’s motion in limine and Defendant did not object at trial” (citing State v. Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, 43–44, ¶ 21 (App. 2013))
• “[I]t is the province of the jury to determine whether a defendant’s conduct fits within the modus operandi of a drug trafficking organization.”
• testimony the defendant was apprehended in a high drug-traffic area was properly admitted where offered to explain why the apprehending officer was surveilling the area
• “[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for 5 STATE v. DRIFFIN Decision of the Court appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).