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.
8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 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. Edmistengreen2 sentences2014“To prevail on a claim of fundamental error, the [defendant] must first show error and then show that the error is fundamental and prejudicial.” State v. Edmisten, 220 Ariz. 517, ¶ 11 , 207 P.3d 770, 775 (App. 2009). ¶8 Trial transcripts must be “satisfactory to afford defendant a meaningful right of appeal.” State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 499 , 858 P.2d 639, 644 (1993); Ariz. Const. art. 2014“To prevail on a claim of fundamental error, the [defendant] must first show error and then show that the error is fundamental and prejudicial.” State v. Edmisten, 220 Ariz. 517, ¶ 11 , 207 P.3d 770, 775 (App. 2009). ¶8 Trial transcripts must be “satisfactory to afford defendant a meaningful right of appeal.” State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 499 , 858 P.2d 639, 644 (1993); Ariz. Const. art. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1991State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420 , 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977). 1991State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420 , 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leegreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blankenshipgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gendrongreen2 sentences2024A claim of fundamental error is not, in other words, “a springboard to reversal where present counsel is simply second-guessing trial counsel.” Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 155 (citation omitted). ¶45 In keeping with the principles on which our adversarial system is based, the Arizona Supreme Court has consistently held that a trial court commits no error by failing to give a justification instruction that no party requested. 2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schackartgreen2 sentences2014“To prevail on a claim of fundamental error, the [defendant] must first show error and then show that the error is fundamental and prejudicial.” State v. Edmisten, 220 Ariz. 517, ¶ 11 , 207 P.3d 770, 775 (App. 2009). ¶8 Trial transcripts must be “satisfactory to afford defendant a meaningful right of appeal.” State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 499 , 858 P.2d 639, 644 (1993); Ariz. Const. art. 2014“To prevail on a claim of fundamental error, the [defendant] must first show error and then show that the error is fundamental and prejudicial.” State v. Edmisten, 220 Ariz. 517, ¶ 11 , 207 P.3d 770, 775 (App. 2009). ¶8 Trial transcripts must be “satisfactory to afford defendant a meaningful right of appeal.” State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 499 , 858 P.2d 639, 644 (1993); Ariz. Const. art. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2009Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 20, 23, 115 P.3d at 607, 608 . 2009Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 20, 23, 115 P.3d at 607, 608 . | 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. Cons
green
1 sentence2020In Cons, the defendant failed to present any argument that the error he alleged went to the foundation of his case or deprived him of an essential right. 208 Ariz. at 411 ¶ 3. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Ramsey
green
1 sentence2020Ramsey involved a defendant who failed to present any argument with respect to a claim of fundamental error based on a denial of due process. 211 Ariz. at 539 ¶ 30 n.6. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Tryon v. Naegle
green
2 sentences1986Tryon v. Naegle, 20 Ariz.App. 138 , 510 P.2d 768 (1973). 1986Tryon v. Naegle, 20 Ariz.App. 138 , 510 P.2d 768 (1973). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.