15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2022 1 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. Woodgreen2 sentences2015State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53, 66 , 1 This is the only portion of the prosecutor’s argument Pledger identified as improper in his opening brief. 4 STATE v. PLEDGER Decision of the Court 881 P.2d 1158, 1171 (1994). 2015State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53, 66 , 1 This is the only portion of the prosecutor’s argument Pledger identified as improper in his opening brief. 4 STATE v. PLEDGER Decision of the Court 881 P.2d 1158, 1171 (1994). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Gendrongreen2 sentences2014See Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 154 , 812 P.2d at 627 . ¶31 We find no error of any sort. 2014See Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 154 , 812 P.2d at 627 . ¶31 We find no error of any sort. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gipsongreen1 sentence2022See State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427, 437, ¶ 39 (App. 2001). ¶22 “In general the trial judge should withhold charging on lesser included offense[s] unless one of the parties requests it, since that charge is not inevitably required in our trials, but is an issue best resolved, in our adversary system, by permitting counsel to decide on tactics.” State v. Gipson, 229 Ariz. 484, 487, ¶ 15 (2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tschilargreen1 sentence2022See State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427, 437, ¶ 39 (App. 2001). ¶22 “In general the trial judge should withhold charging on lesser included offense[s] unless one of the parties requests it, since that charge is not inevitably required in our trials, but is an issue best resolved, in our adversary system, by permitting counsel to decide on tactics.” State v. Gipson, 229 Ariz. 484, 487, ¶ 15 (2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pandeligreen2 sentences2010State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514, 523, ¶ 7 , 161 P.3d 557, 566 (2007). 2010State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514, 523, ¶ 7 , 161 P.3d 557, 566 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Amaya-Ruizgreen2 sentences2010“The trial court has considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Amaycir-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152,167 , 800 P.2d 1260,1275 (1990). ¶ 90 To begin, Far West has forfeited its right to appellate review of this issue absent fundamental error because Far West raised it for the first time in a motion for new trial. 2010“The trial court has considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Amaycir-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152,167 , 800 P.2d 1260,1275 (1990). ¶ 90 To begin, Far West has forfeited its right to appellate review of this issue absent fundamental error because Far West raised it for the first time in a motion for new trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Laversgreen2 sentences2000Gendron . *375 “Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.” State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 385 , 814 P.2d 333, 342 (1991). 2000Gendron . *375 “Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.” State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 385 , 814 P.2d 333, 342 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Westgreen2 sentences1998E.g., State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432, 444 , 862 P.2d 192, 204 (1993). ¶ 16 We agree with the state that, even had defendant requested the instruction, the evidence would not have supported this defense. 1998E.g., State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432, 444 , 862 P.2d 192, 204 (1993). ¶ 16 We agree with the state that, even had defendant requested the instruction, the evidence would not have supported this defense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holdergreen2 sentences1998See Holder, 155 Ariz. at 85 , 745 P.2d at 143 . ¶ 19 We find no error, fundamental or otherwise, in the court’s use of the earlier version of the Willits instruction. 1998See Holder, 155 Ariz. at 85 , 745 P.2d at 143 . ¶ 19 We find no error, fundamental or otherwise, in the court’s use of the earlier version of the Willits instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Krepsgreen2 sentences1990State v. Kreps, 146 Ariz. 446, 450 , 706 P.2d 1213, 1217 (1985). 1990State v. Kreps, 146 Ariz. 446, 450 , 706 P.2d 1213, 1217 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1985State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432 , 636 P.2d 1214 (1981); State v. Rodriquez, 145 Ariz. 157 , 700 P.2d 855 (App.1984). 1985Id. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Gallegos
green
2 sentences1995Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c); State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1 , 870 P.2d 1097 , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 330 , 130 L.Ed.2d 289 (1994). 1995Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c); State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1 , 870 P.2d 1097 , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 330 , 130 L.Ed.2d 289 (1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lefkowitz & Bro. v. Wharton
green
1 sentence1995Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c); State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1 , 870 P.2d 1097 , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 330 , 130 L.Ed.2d 289 (1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Rodriquez
green
2 sentences1985State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432 , 636 P.2d 1214 (1981); State v. Rodriquez, 145 Ariz. 157 , 700 P.2d 855 (App.1984). 1985State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432 , 636 P.2d 1214 (1981); State v. Rodriquez, 145 Ariz. 157 , 700 P.2d 855 (App.1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.