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.
14 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 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. Thomasgreen2 sentences2020“If it is determined that error occurred, the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error must [then] be evaluated in light of the entire record.” Id. 2016If an error occurred, “the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error must be evaluated in light of the entire record.” Id. at 436 (citations omitted). 5 STATE v. DEVORCE Decision of the Court Moreover, to obtain a reversal, a defendant must also show that the fundamental error caused him prejudice. | 9 | 10 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences1990The error must significantly contribute to the verdict and “the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error must be evaluated in light of the entire record.” State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419 , 763 P.2d 239 (1988); State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 436 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1218 (1981). 1990The error must significantly contribute to the verdict and “the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error must be evaluated in light of the entire record.” State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419 , 763 P.2d 239 (1988); State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 436 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1218 (1981). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Reimergreen2 sentences2012State v. Reimer, 189 Ariz. 239, 241 , 941 P.2d 912, 914 (App.1997). 2012State v. Reimer, 189 Ariz. 239, 241 , 941 P.2d 912, 914 (App.1997). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2012When reviewing for fundamental error we first determine whether the trial court committed error, and only if we find it erred will we consider "the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error ... in light of the entire record." State v. Morales, 198 Ariz. 372, 375, ¶ 9 , 10 P.3d 630, 633 (App. 2000) (citing State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 436 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1218 (1981)). ¶ 11 Arizona prohibits testimony from an expert or a lay witness that opines as to the truthfulness of a statement by another witness. 2012When reviewing for fundamental error we first determine whether the trial court committed error, and only if we find it erred will we consider "the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error ... in light of the entire record." State v. Morales, 198 Ariz. 372, 375, ¶ 9 , 10 P.3d 630, 633 (App. 2000) (citing State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 436 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1218 (1981)). ¶ 11 Arizona prohibits testimony from an expert or a lay witness that opines as to the truthfulness of a statement by another witness. | 2 | 2 |
Kipp Flores Architects, LLC v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.green1 sentence2020Co., 852 F.3d 405, 415-16 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that an unobjected-to claim in a no asset bankruptcy is not preclusive). ¶34 The Creditors counter that, notwithstanding the report of no distribution by the Chapter 7 trustee ("Trustee"), Husband's bankruptcy was not a "no asset" case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2016Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 26 .4 ¶15 The error is harmless, even if fundamental, if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, the trial record reflects the error, and the error does not contribute to a guilty verdict. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gendrongreen2 sentences1994State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 436 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1218 (1981); see also State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 , 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). 1994State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 436 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1218 (1981); see also State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 , 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). | 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. Pulliam
green
2 sentences1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citing State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216 , 349 P.2d 781 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977)). 1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citing State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216 , 349 P.2d 781 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977)). | 2 | 1981–1988 |
State v. Cobb
green
2 sentences1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citing State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216 , 349 P.2d 781 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977)). 1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citing State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216 , 349 P.2d 781 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977)). | 2 | 1981–1988 |
State v. Anzivino
green
1 sentence2024Courts have not always agreed on when it is appropriate to deploy this limited-remand practice. ¶3 This case calls for us to decide whether an unobjected-to violation of A.R.S. § 13-711(A)—which requires courts to explain certain sentencing decisions on the record—is amenable to: (1) fundamental-error review, (2) structural-error review, or (3) the limited-remand practice developed in cases like State v. Anzivino, 148 Ariz. 593 (App. 1985), and State v. Harrison, 195 Ariz. 1 (1999). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Harrison
green
1 sentence2024Courts have not always agreed on when it is appropriate to deploy this limited-remand practice. ¶3 This case calls for us to decide whether an unobjected-to violation of A.R.S. § 13-711(A)—which requires courts to explain certain sentencing decisions on the record—is amenable to: (1) fundamental-error review, (2) structural-error review, or (3) the limited-remand practice developed in cases like State v. Anzivino, 148 Ariz. 593 (App. 1985), and State v. Harrison, 195 Ariz. 1 (1999). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hunter
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.