Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1/20/2009

State v. Zamora

Citations

202 P.3d 528
220 Ariz. 63
548 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 4
2009 WL 130131

How courts have described this case

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

providing that a person is in “custody” when a reasonable man would feel that he was deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
noting we will infer findings necessary to affirm the trial court as long as there is no conflict with any express findings
proving a Miranda violation requires defendant to show he was “in custody” and was not read Miranda warnings before police began a “custodial interrogation[]”
permitting this Court to infer the necessary findings to affirm the superior court, “only if the implied findings do not conflict with the court’s express findings”
defining custodial interrogation as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way” (citation omitted)
reviewing court will infer any necessary findings to affirm the lower court’s ruling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kessler, Norris, Gemmill

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

32 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.