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.
15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 10 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. Biblegreen2 sentences2025“When an issue is raised but erroneously ruled on by the trial court, this court reviews for harmless error.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 (1993). 2024The State argues the superior court did not err by admitting the other-act evidence and argues any error was harmless because overwhelming evidence of guilt existed and because the other acts were less egregious than the charged crime of murder. ¶17 When a criminal defendant raises an issue on which the superior court allegedly ruled erroneously, “this court reviews for harmless error.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 (1993). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2025State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005). ¶10 State law makes it unlawful to operate a vehicle under certain circumstances including when a person was driving “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.” A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1). 2019Error is harmless if the State demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict," State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005), and when excluded evidence is merely cumulative to admitted evidence, State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1, 13 (1994). a. | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Preston Alton Stronggreen2 sentences2025See Strong, ___ Ariz. at ___ ¶ 45, 555 P.3d at 553 . ¶34 Alcantar says Sarah’s mother’s testimony was relevant only to whether she coerced Sarah to tell police it was all a misunderstanding in the first safe child interview. 2025See Strong, ___ Ariz. at ___ ¶ 45, 555 P.3d at 553 . ¶34 Kee argues the superior court improperly allowed the jury to find he was in a “position of trust” with the victim and then relied on that finding to impose an aggravated sentence. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hoffmangreen1 sentence2022“The purpose of an objection is to permit the [superior] court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, 13, ¶ 30 (2003) (quoting State v. Hoffman, 78 Ariz. 319, 325 (1955)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rutledgegreen1 sentence2022“The purpose of an objection is to permit the [superior] court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, 13, ¶ 30 (2003) (quoting State v. Hoffman, 78 Ariz. 319, 325 (1955)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. VanWinklegreen1 sentence2021See Leon, 244 Ariz. at 469, ¶ 12 (“With limited exceptions, erroneous jury instructions are subject to either harmless or fundamental error review.”); State v. VanWinkle, 229 Ariz. 233, 237, ¶ 16 (App. 2011) (applying harmless error analysis to improper comment on defendant’s constitutional right to silence). | 1 | 1 |
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizonagreen1 sentence2021Gallardo v. State, 236 Ariz. 84, 87, ¶ 8 (2014). ¶11 This court reviews for harmless error because Warren moved for mistrial. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinezgreen1 sentence2020See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gallegosgreen1 sentence2019Error is harmless if the State demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict," State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005), and when excluded evidence is merely cumulative to admitted evidence, State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1, 13 (1994). a. | 1 | 1 |
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovelgreen2 sentences2015See id. at 451 , 719 P.2d at 1067 . ¶11 “When an issue is raised but erroneously ruled on by the trial court, this court reviews for harmless error.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993). 2015See id. at 451 , 719 P.2d at 1067 . ¶11 “When an issue is raised but erroneously ruled on by the trial court, this court reviews for harmless error.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gallardogreen2 sentences2012State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560 , 568 ¶ 35, 242 P.3d 159, 167 (2010). 1. 2012State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560 , 568 ¶ 35, 242 P.3d 159, 167 (2010). 1. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McVaygreen2 sentences1993See State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1980). 1993See State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1980). | 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. Morris
green
1 sentence2022State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 , 335 ¶ 47 (2007). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Coghill
green
1 sentence2022“When an issue is raised but erroneously ruled on by the trial court, this court reviews for harmless error.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 (1993) (emphasis added); accord State v. Teran, No. 1 CA- CR 21-0148, 2022 WL 1146355 , at *4 ¶ 25 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2022 (same); State v. Coghill, 216 Ariz. 578 , 585 ¶ 28 (App. 2007) (same). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.