supplemental instruction in Arizona

8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2019 0 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.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
Christopher K. v. Markaa S.green arizctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Father counters that these statutes did not apply because Mother’s allegations “have all gone unsubstantiated.” ¶23 When considering the child’s best interests, the superior court “must consider all relevant factors, including those enumerated in A.R.S. § 25-403(A).” Christopher K. v. Markaa S., 233 Ariz. 297, 301, ¶ 18 (App. 2013).	1	1
Volk v. Bramegreen arizctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See Volk, 235 Ariz. at 469, ¶ 22 .	1	1
State v. Boltongreen ariz · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 (1995). ¶32 Although the instruction may reflect a correct statement of law, the italicized comments in the State’s rebuttal argument reflect that the State, contrary to Mullet’s argument, did not seek a conviction merely based on Mullet’s manipulation of the invoices.	1	1
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeidagreen arizctapp · 2015 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Almeida, 238 Ariz. 77, ¶ 17 , 356 P.3d at 826 . 2016See Almeida, 238 Ariz. 77, ¶ 17 , 356 P.3d at 826 .	1	1
Rollins v. Stategreen alaskactapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	1
People v. Millsapgreen ill · 2000 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	1
People v. Richardsgreen nyappdiv · 1979 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	1
United States v. Jeffrey Gaskins, AKA Jeffery Gaskingreen ca9 · 1988 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	1
Rose v. Clarkgreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (quoting Justice Stevens' concurrence in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). ¶ 25 The above supplemental test is similar to the test the United States Supreme Court used in analyzing a defendant's right to a public trial under Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 49 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). 2004Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (quoting Justice Stevens' concurrence in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). ¶ 25 The above supplemental test is similar to the test the United States Supreme Court used in analyzing a defendant's right to a public trial under Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 49 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984).	1	1
State v. Garcia-Contrerasgreen ariz · 1998 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See State v. Garcia-Contreras, 191 Ariz. 144, 148-49, ¶¶ 17-22 , 953 P.2d 536, 540-41 (1998) (absence of defendant in selecting jury is structural error); Dann, 205 Ariz. at 575, ¶ 72 , 74 P.3d at 249 (emphasizing importance of having defendant present in matters dealing with the jury). 2004See State v. Garcia-Contreras, 191 Ariz. 144, 148-49, ¶¶ 17-22 , 953 P.2d 536, 540-41 (1998) (absence of defendant in selecting jury is structural error); Dann, 205 Ariz. at 575, ¶ 72 , 74 P.3d at 249 (emphasizing importance of having defendant present in matters dealing with the jury).	1	1
State v. Danngreen ariz · 2003 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004It also meets the underlying concerns stated in Summerlin, Justice White's dissent in Fulminante and most of the concerns of the more restrictive tests used for structural error. ¶ 26 Applying this test to the important issue of the defendant being present before the jury, Dann, 205 Ariz. at 575, ¶ 72 , 74 P.3d at 249 , I conclude the return of the verdict in absentia here was structural error. 2004It also meets the underlying concerns stated in Summerlin, Justice White's dissent in Fulminante and most of the concerns of the more restrictive tests used for structural error. ¶ 26 Applying this test to the important issue of the defendant being present before the jury, Dann, 205 Ariz. at 575, ¶ 72 , 74 P.3d at 249 , I conclude the return of the verdict in absentia here was structural error.	1	1
State v. Levatogreen ariz · 1996 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Levato, 186 Ariz. at 444 n. 2, 924 P.2d at 448 (holding that issue need not be addressed). 2004Levato, 186 Ariz. at 444 n. 2, 924 P.2d at 448 (holding that issue need not be addressed).	1	1
United States v. Stella Maudine Nickellgreen ca9 · 1989 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996United States v. Nickell, 883 F.2d 824, 828 (9th Cir.1989). 6 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (2)

Case	Negative	Cited
Cheely v. Stategreen alaskactapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	1
Garza v. Stategreen texapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	1

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Stanley v. Illinois green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 2019She contends the additional time was necessary to ensure she had a meaningful opportunity to be heard because she would have presented evidence making clear that the presumptions codified in A.R.S. §§ 25-403.03 and -403.04 barred Father from exercising legal decision-making.2 Father asserts the court afforded 2 Mother also suggests the lack of time violated her substantive due process rights, citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).	1	2019–2019
Santosky v. Kramer green scotus · 1982 1 sentence 2019She contends the additional time was necessary to ensure she had a meaningful opportunity to be heard because she would have presented evidence making clear that the presumptions codified in A.R.S. §§ 25-403.03 and -403.04 barred Father from exercising legal decision-making.2 Father asserts the court afforded 2 Mother also suggests the lack of time violated her substantive due process rights, citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).	1	2019–2019
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner green ariz · 2012 2 sentences 2018State v. Hausner , 230 Ariz. 60 , 82 ¶ 99, 280 P.3d 604 (2012) (citing Tuilaepa v. California , 512 U.S. 967 , 972, 114 S.Ct. 2630 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994) ). 2018State v. Hausner , 230 Ariz. 60 , 82 ¶ 99, 280 P.3d 604 (2012) (citing Tuilaepa v. California , 512 U.S. 967 , 972, 114 S.Ct. 2630 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994) ).	1	2018–2018
Tuilaepa v. California green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2018State v. Hausner , 230 Ariz. 60 , 82 ¶ 99, 280 P.3d 604 (2012) (citing Tuilaepa v. California , 512 U.S. 967 , 972, 114 S.Ct. 2630 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994) ). 2018State v. Hausner , 230 Ariz. 60 , 82 ¶ 99, 280 P.3d 604 (2012) (citing Tuilaepa v. California , 512 U.S. 967 , 972, 114 S.Ct. 2630 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994) ).	1	2018–2018
Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co. green nyappdiv · 1979 1 sentence 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	2014–2014
State v. Thurmond green wisctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2014This often occurs “where the supplemental instruction deprives the defendant of the opportunity to address effectively in summation the offense on which he is ultimately convicted.” Id.; see also United States v. Gaskins, 849 F.2d 454, 459-60 (9th Cir.1988); Rollins v. State, 757 P.2d 601, 602 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988); Garza, 55 S.W.3d at 77-78 ; People v. Millsap, 189 Ill.2d 155 , 244 Ill.Dec. 54 , 724 N.E.2d 942, 947-48 (2000); People v. Richards, 67 A.D.2d 893 , 413 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (1979); Thurmond, 677 N.W.2d 655, ¶¶ 24-25 ; but see Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653, 663 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (n	1	2014–2014
Waller v. Georgia green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2004Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (quoting Justice Stevens' concurrence in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). ¶ 25 The above supplemental test is similar to the test the United States Supreme Court used in analyzing a defendant's right to a public trial under Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 49 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). 2004Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (quoting Justice Stevens' concurrence in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). ¶ 25 The above supplemental test is similar to the test the United States Supreme Court used in analyzing a defendant's right to a public trial under Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 49 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984).	1	2004–2004
Arizona v. Fulminante green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2004Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (quoting Justice Stevens' concurrence in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). ¶ 25 The above supplemental test is similar to the test the United States Supreme Court used in analyzing a defendant's right to a public trial under Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 49 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). 2004Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (quoting Justice Stevens' concurrence in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). ¶ 25 The above supplemental test is similar to the test the United States Supreme Court used in analyzing a defendant's right to a public trial under Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 49 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984).	1	2004–2004
Neder v. United States green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2004Neder, 527 U.S. at 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 . ¶ 43 The only two elements which some of the more stringent tests include and which could be considered omitted from the supplemental test are that the error pervade the entire trial and that it affect the truth-finding function of the jury. 2004Neder, 527 U.S. at 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 . ¶ 43 The only two elements which some of the more stringent tests include and which could be considered omitted from the supplemental test are that the error pervade the entire trial and that it affect the truth-finding function of the jury.	1	2004–2004
Berry v. McLeod green ariz · 1979 2 sentences 2002That the jury returned appropriately consistent verdicts after a supplemental instruction confirms that the jury neither disregarded its instructions nor was hopelessly confused. ¶ 47 Defendants rely on Berry v. McLeod, 124 Ariz. 346 , 604 P.2d 610 (1979), but that case does not show that the inconsistency here was incurable. 2002That the jury returned appropriately consistent verdicts after a supplemental instruction confirms that the jury neither disregarded its instructions nor was hopelessly confused. ¶ 47 Defendants rely on Berry v. McLeod, 124 Ariz. 346 , 604 P.2d 610 (1979), but that case does not show that the inconsistency here was incurable.	1	2002–2002

Where else courts name it

NY 198 (1891–2026) CA 95 (1926–2026) TX 84 (1935–2025) MI 62 (1936–2025) IL 62 (1898–2026) MA 58 (1976–2026) OH 56 (1972–2025) MD 55 (1932–2026) NE 51 (1930–2026) TN 44 (1987–2024) CO 39 (1949–2026) CT 34 (1953–2021) PA 32 (1901–2025) NJ 30 (1964–2026) WA 29 (1915–2023) DC 22 (1974–2024) UT 21 (1954–2026) IN 21 (1980–2019) IA 21 (1995–2025) FL 19 (1986–2024) AL 18 (1912–2014) OR 18 (1954–2026) WV 15 (1931–2025) NC 13 (1988–2022) SC 13 (1983–2023) ID 11 (1983–2025) WY 11 (1968–2021) MO 11 (1962–2021) MS 10 (1970–2017) RI 10 (1983–2025) WI 10 (1975–2026) AK 9 (1966–2022) VT 8 (1936–2020) ND 8 (1972–2023) GA 8 (1950–2021) AZ 8 (1996–2019) HI 8 (1980–2011) KS 7 (1940–2014) DE 7 (1973–2026) NM 6 (1963–2018) OK 6 (1912–2004) AR 5 (1949–1970) MT 5 (1992–2011) LA 4 (1985–2009) VA 3 (1988–1999) MN 3 (1980–2016) NV 3 (2019–2019) NH 2 (1992–2009) ME 2 (2002–2003) VI 2 (2010–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check