Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2022See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶ 19. ¶124 Sammantha moved in limine to preclude certain “gruesome” photographs as lacking probative value “because they [would] not be used to prove or disprove an issue that [was] disputed,” as “the cause and manner of death [were] not contested.” The State contended that the photographs were admissible to illustrate the abuse, death, and autopsy of A.D., and to show the scene of the crime and aid the jury in determining whether a murder happened. ¶125 The court instructed the defense to object at trial if there was a gruesome photograph it wished to exclude f 2019See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 , ¶ 19 (citing Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572 ). | 9 | 9 |
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safetygreen2 sentences2024See Brenda D., 243 Ariz. at 447 ¶ 37. 2024See id. at 447 ¶ 37. | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalantegreen1 sentence2023See State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 138 ¶ 1 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butlergreen1 sentence2023See State v. Butler, 230 Ariz. 465, 470, ¶ 15 (App. 2012) (noting that whether Hargrave governs all duplicitous-indictment issues is “questionable” but nonetheless reviewing the issue for fundamental error). 4 [Clarke house]…Christian, committed theft of personal property…with a value of $4,000.00 or more….” The evidence established that over several days, Christian removed items from the Apartment, transported those items to the Clarke house, then moved the items stolen from the Apartment along with items stolen from the Clarke house to her residence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Princegreen1 sentence2021State v. Prince, 226 Ariz. 516, 537, ¶ 84 (2011). ¶32 We will reverse a conviction because of prosecutorial error if: (1) misconduct is present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the 10 misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying the defendant a fair trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen1 sentence2019See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 , ¶ 19 (citing Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Currygreen1 sentence2018See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005); State v. Curry, 187 Ariz. 623, 632 (App. 1996) (fundamental error review when defendant failed to challenge aggravating factor at sentencing). ¶7 The State does not dispute that the superior court erred by sentencing Smith as a category-three offender when the indictment alleged just one historical prior felony conviction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lairdgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Laird, 186 Ariz. 203, 206 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schrockgreen2 sentences2015State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 440 , 719 P.2d 1049, 1056 (1986). 2015State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 440 , 719 P.2d 1049, 1056 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2014State v. Alvarez, 213 Ariz. 467, 469, ¶ 7 , 143 P.3d 668, 670 (App. 2006). 2014State v. Alvarez, 213 Ariz. 467, 469, ¶ 7 , 143 P.3d 668, 670 (App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Bealmear v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.green2 sentences2005Section 13-1207, entitled “Prisoners who commit assault with intent to incite to riot or participate in riot,” states in pertinent part: “A person, while in the custody of the state department of corrections or a county or city jail, who commits assault upon another person with the intent to incite to riot or who participates in a riot is guilty of a class 2 felony.” We conclude that, rather than creating two separate offenses, § 13-1207 creates a single offense that can be committed in alternate ways. ¶ 8 “ “Various tests are applied in determining whether statutes are intended to create one 2005Section 13-1207, entitled “Prisoners who commit assault with intent to incite to riot or participate in riot,” states in pertinent part: “A person, while in the custody of the state department of corrections or a county or city jail, who commits assault upon another person with the intent to incite to riot or who participates in a riot is guilty of a class 2 felony.” We conclude that, rather than creating two separate offenses, § 13-1207 creates a single offense that can be committed in alternate ways. ¶ 8 “ “Various tests are applied in determining whether statutes are intended to create one | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hathawaygreen2 sentences2005Section 13-1207, entitled “Prisoners who commit assault with intent to incite to riot or participate in riot,” states in pertinent part: “A person, while in the custody of the state department of corrections or a county or city jail, who commits assault upon another person with the intent to incite to riot or who participates in a riot is guilty of a class 2 felony.” We conclude that, rather than creating two separate offenses, § 13-1207 creates a single offense that can be committed in alternate ways. ¶ 8 “ “Various tests are applied in determining whether statutes are intended to create one 2005Section 13-1207, entitled “Prisoners who commit assault with intent to incite to riot or participate in riot,” states in pertinent part: “A person, while in the custody of the state department of corrections or a county or city jail, who commits assault upon another person with the intent to incite to riot or who participates in a riot is guilty of a class 2 felony.” We conclude that, rather than creating two separate offenses, § 13-1207 creates a single offense that can be committed in alternate ways. ¶ 8 “ “Various tests are applied in determining whether statutes are intended to create one | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hickmangreen2 sentences2004See State v. Hickman, 194 Ariz. 248 , 980 P.2d 501 (App.1999); see also State v. Mann, 188 Ariz. 220 , 934 P.2d 784 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring) (reviewing court has discretion to address fundamental error that is manifest from court’s examination of appeal issues). 2004See State v. Hickman, 194 Ariz. 248 , 980 P.2d 501 (App.1999); see also State v. Mann, 188 Ariz. 220 , 934 P.2d 784 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring) (reviewing court has discretion to address fundamental error that is manifest from court’s examination of appeal issues). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manngreen2 sentences2004See State v. Hickman, 194 Ariz. 248 , 980 P.2d 501 (App.1999); see also State v. Mann, 188 Ariz. 220 , 934 P.2d 784 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring) (reviewing court has discretion to address fundamental error that is manifest from court’s examination of appeal issues). 2004See State v. Hickman, 194 Ariz. 248 , 980 P.2d 501 (App.1999); see also State v. Mann, 188 Ariz. 220 , 934 P.2d 784 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring) (reviewing court has discretion to address fundamental error that is manifest from court’s examination of appeal issues). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dickensred2 sentences2001State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 22-23 , 926 P.2d 468, 489-90 (1996). 2001State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 22-23 , 926 P.2d 468, 489-90 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crystal E. v. Department of Child Safety
green
1 sentence2024Crystal E., 241 Ariz. at 578 ¶ 8 (Asking for supplemental briefing is appropriate “in the interests of justice and because of the inherent constitutional ramifications” of a termination of parental rights.). ¶26 Because Aaron D. did not raise his parenthood of the child as an issue before the superior court or in his opening brief, this court reviews the issue for fundamental error. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Logan
green
1 sentence2015The State offered sufficient evidence for each element of each charge, and Esposito did not offer any 6 Although given Esposito’s statements at sidebar, the doctrine of invited error could preclude his argument on appeal, see State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 , 566 ¶ 11 (2001), on this record, the court analyzes the issue for fundamental error resulting in prejudice. 5 STATE v. ESPOSITO Decision of the Court alternative explanation, theory or defense, cross-examine any witness or make a closing argument. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Politte
green
2 sentences1991Although we still review this issue for fundamental error prejudicial to the defendant, A.R.S. § 13-4035; Politte, 136 Ariz. at 123 , 664 P.2d at 667 , here we find no error. 1991Although we still review this issue for fundamental error prejudicial to the defendant, A.R.S. § 13-4035; Politte, 136 Ariz. at 123 , 664 P.2d at 667 , here we find no error. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.