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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2024 2 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 of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murraygreen2 sentences2024“To prevail under the fundamental error standard, a defendant must show an error that ’goes to the foundation of a case, takes away an essential right, or is so egregious that [the] defendant could not have received a fair trial.’” Sulu-Kerr, 256 Ariz. at 536, ¶ 20 (quoting State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543, 548, ¶ 14 (2021)). 2024To prevail under the fundamental error standard, a defendant must show an error that “goes to the foundation of a case, takes away an essential right, or is so egregious that [the] defendant could not have received a fair trial.” State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543, 548, ¶ 14 (2021) (internal quotation and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 11, ¶ 28 (2010) (citing State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 304 (1995) (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review). ¶18 To establish fundamental error, a defendant must show that error occurred and that the error was so egregious the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial, the error went to the foundation of the 3 Workum concedes that no legal authority supports admission of the evidence under Arizona Rule of Eviden 2020State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 142, ¶ 21 (2018) (citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 23 ). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moodygreen1 sentence2020State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 459, ¶ 145 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hargravegreen1 sentence2020See State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 11, ¶ 28 (2010) (citing State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 304 (1995) (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review). ¶18 To establish fundamental error, a defendant must show that error occurred and that the error was so egregious the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial, the error went to the foundation of the 3 Workum concedes that no legal authority supports admission of the evidence under Arizona Rule of Eviden | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coghillgreen1 sentence2020See State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 11, ¶ 28 (2010) (citing State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 304 (1995) (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review). ¶18 To establish fundamental error, a defendant must show that error occurred and that the error was so egregious the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial, the error went to the foundation of the 3 Workum concedes that no legal authority supports admission of the evidence under Arizona Rule of Eviden | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boltongreen1 sentence2020See State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 11, ¶ 28 (2010) (citing State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 304 (1995) (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review). ¶18 To establish fundamental error, a defendant must show that error occurred and that the error was so egregious the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial, the error went to the foundation of the 3 Workum concedes that no legal authority supports admission of the evidence under Arizona Rule of Eviden | 1 | 1 |
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp.green1 sentence2018State v. Dalton, 241 Ariz. 182, 185-86, ¶¶ 11-12 (2016). ¶8 In Arizona, a defendant has the right to be present at every stage of trial, from the impaneling of the jury through the return of the verdict. | 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. Hunter
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 567, ¶ 20, 688 P.2d at 607 (citing Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 , among others, to establish the foundation for a showing of prejudice to prevail under the standard of review for fundamental error). ¶ 10 Our supreme court has ruled that failure to instruct the jury on burden of proof is fundamental error. 2009Id. at 567, ¶ 20, 688 P.2d at 607 (citing Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 , among others, to establish the foundation for a showing of prejudice to prevail under the standard of review for fundamental error). ¶ 10 Our supreme court has ruled that failure to instruct the jury on burden of proof is fundamental error. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.