Source: http://www.azattorneymag-digital.com/azattorneymag/201601/?pg=46
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:35:30+00:00

Document:
decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico the Court of Appeals found that Bullcoming did not create a new rule requiring the state to call every person in the chain of custody or every person who had participated in testing (including those who had assisted in generating the DNA profiles) to testify at trial. In addition, the court further noted that under the even more recent plurality opinion of our highest court in Williams, no Confrontation Clause violation occurs when an analyst relies on DNA profiles generated by a [non-testifying] third-party because the challenged statement (i.e., profiles) “are not testimonial” until they are compared by the testifying analyst to a particular defendant’s known DNA profile. State v. Ortiz, 2 CA-CR 2014-0330, 10/16/15.
A.R.S. § 28-622(A) provides criminal liability for willfully refusing or failing to comply with a lawful order or direction of a police officer is not unconstitutionally vague on its face because the text of the statute provides reasonably intelligent individuals with notice of prohibited conduct. In further considering that the statute lacks specific limiting language or guidelines to law enforcement as to temporal considerations for compliance, the court held that such uncertainty does not rise to the level of unconstitutional vagueness, nor open the possibility for discriminatory enforcement. State v. Burke, 1 CA-CR 14-0438, 10/8/15.
In a case with some conflicting evidence as to the victim’s cause of death (i.e., homicide or suicide) in which a former police officer was convicted of second-degree murder yet claimed that his son-in-law known for disliking guns had committed suicide after the two men had continued drinking together for a number of hours, a trial court errs by granting a defendant’s motion for new trial based on the verdict being contrary to the weight of the evidence because although its duty has been described as sitting as the 13th juror in a criminal case, a trial court may not set aside a verdict merely because if she/he had been the trier of fact he/she would have reached a different result.
the right to have a jury determine issues of fact.
A trial court errs in granting a motion to suppress incriminating text messages obtained from a communication service provider because A.R.S. § 13-3016(C)( 1) does not require the State to notify a party when it obtains electronic communications pursuant to a search warrant because the plain language of the statute states that whether the State obtains by warrant electronic communications stored for more than 180 days under Subsection (C)( 1) or such communications in storage for 180 days or less under (B)( 1), no notice to the subscriber is required. A State agency is not required to provide notice, delayed or otherwise, when information is obtained pursuant to a search warrant. State v. Reyes, 2 CA-CR 14-0809, 10/1/15.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 28
 v. 
 § 13
 v.