Arizona Supreme Court· 3/4/1987

State v. Rivera

Citations

733 P.2d 1090
152 Ariz. 507
1987 Ariz. LEXIS 147

How courts have described this case

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

holding that to determine adequacy of warmngs, court looks to the totality of the circumstances, including a defendant’s “background, experience and conduct” (citation omitted)
holding that to satisfy Miranda, “the State must show that defendant understood his rights”
holding that trial court properly excluded expert testimony in a sexual assault case; court precluded expert testimony that alcohol consumption by the victim may have reduced victim’s sexual inhibitions and increased his sexual aggressiveness
holding where evidence is “no longer available because the State has destroyed the evidence or failed in its duty to preserve the evidence,” a Willits instruction will cure the error and protect the defendant’s due process rights
explaining that while the State has a duty to preserve blood 11 alcohol test results, it “has no corresponding duty . . . to gather blood alcohol evidence for 12 the defense to use in corroborating the defense’s own evidence”
defining \negative evidence\ as testimony that a fact did not occur

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holohan, Gordon, Feldman, Cameron

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.