State v. Lelevier

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding an order denying the State’s motions was not an order “granting a motion to suppress the use of evidence” and therefore not appealable under A.R.S. § 13-4032(6)
• “A motion to suppress challenges only the constitutionality of the obtaining of evidence by the state ...”
• “[A]ppeals by the 3 STATE v. SANTILLANES Opinion of the Court government in criminal matters historically have not been favored, and in the absence of a constitutional provision or statute clearly conferring that right, such an appeal cannot be taken.”
• “[A]ppeals by the 3 STATE v. SANTILLANES Opinion of the Court government in criminal matters historically have not been favored, and in the absence of a constitutional provision or statute clearly conferring that right, such an appeal cannot be taken.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).