material defense (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

material defense in Arizona

6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2024 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Bergegreen
ariz · 1981 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024
2 sentences

2024Failure to provide relevant portions can result in a presumption that the missing portions of the record support the action of the trial court.” State v. Berge, 130 Ariz. 135, 136 (1981).

2019See State v. Berge, 130 Ariz. 135, 136 (1981) (“We have held that it is the responsibility of the party objecting to see that the record on appeal contains the material to which exception is taken.”); State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 399 (1991) (“[W]e assume that any evidence not available on appeal supports the trial court’s actions.”). ¶18 Aside from three stipulated facts gleaned from an oral argument transcript, this court has no evidence, no documents and no testimony to perform an intelligent and meaningful review.

22
State v. Schackartgreen
ariz · 1997 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238, 247 (1997) (Our review is limited to the record on appeal.). “[I]t is the responsibility of the party objecting to see that the record on appeal contains the material to which exception is taken.

11
State v. Laversgreen
ariz · 1991 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019See State v. Berge, 130 Ariz. 135, 136 (1981) (“We have held that it is the responsibility of the party objecting to see that the record on appeal contains the material to which exception is taken.”); State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 399 (1991) (“[W]e assume that any evidence not available on appeal supports the trial court’s actions.”). ¶18 Aside from three stipulated facts gleaned from an oral argument transcript, this court has no evidence, no documents and no testimony to perform an intelligent and meaningful review.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Alonzo Singleton v. The Honorable Louis J. Lefkowitz, New York State Attorney General green
ca2 · 1978
1 sentence

1982In Singleton v. Lefkowitz, 583 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1978), the government improperly released from custody a material defense witness, and the court held that this government action violated the defendant’s sixth amendment rights.

11982–1982
State v. Guthrie green
ariz · 1972
2 sentences

1981State v. Guthrie, 108 Ariz. 280 , 496 P.2d 580 (1972) cert. den. 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 131 , 34 L.Ed.2d 132 .

1981State v. Guthrie, 108 Ariz. 280 , 496 P.2d 580 (1972) cert. den. 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 131 , 34 L.Ed.2d 132 .

11981–1981
Martin v. United States green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1981State v. Guthrie, 108 Ariz. 280 , 496 P.2d 580 (1972) cert. den. 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 131 , 34 L.Ed.2d 132 .

11981–1981
Ree v. Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District, County of Los Angeles green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1981State v. Guthrie, 108 Ariz. 280 , 496 P.2d 580 (1972) cert. den. 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 131 , 34 L.Ed.2d 132 .

11981–1981
Abbott v. Sumter Lumber Co. green
sc · 1912
1 sentence

1981State v. Guthrie, 108 Ariz. 280 , 496 P.2d 580 (1972) cert. den. 409 U.S. 878 , 93 S.Ct. 131 , 34 L.Ed.2d 132 .

11981–1981
United States v. John Stoecker, Jr., Ike Ramsey, and Alice Taylor Stoecker green
ca7 · 1954
1 sentence

1970Trial strategy is seldom viewed with a uniform eye.’ United States v. Stoecker, supra, 216 F.2d at 52 .” Defendant contends that trial counsel made a material error in not objecting to the testimony of the pathologist to be read to the jury without requiring a hearing as to the physical fitness of the doctor to testify.

11970–1970
King v. Stanley green
cal · 1948
2 sentences

1960King v. Stanley, 32 Cal.2d 584 , 197 P.2d 321 .

1960King v. Stanley, 32 Cal.2d 584 , 197 P.2d 321 .

11960–1960

Where else courts name it

MI 95 (1942–2024) AL 78 (1848–2013) TX 69 (1875–2025) CA 65 (1897–2025) FL 60 (1940–2025) TN 44 (1903–2022) NY 39 (1847–2022) GA 38 (1895–2010) IL 30 (1853–2026) WI 29 (1894–2026) PA 25 (1870–2026) IA 24 (1862–2025) SD 23 (1895–2018) IN 22 (1855–2025) MS 20 (1881–2019) MO 19 (1890–2009) LA 17 (1926–2020) MA 16 (1947–2026) WA 16 (1895–2020) OK 15 (1905–2012) CT 15 (1928–2024) KS 14 (1880–2010) MD 13 (1922–2023) OR 13 (1899–2023) NC 13 (1897–2017) VA 13 (1908–2026) NE 12 (1889–2021) WV 10 (1893–2004) NJ 10 (1948–2018) OH 9 (1919–2023) CO 7 (1927–2025) KY 7 (1915–1991) AZ 6 (1960–2024) AR 5 (1910–1961) ND 5 (1975–2026) NM 5 (1916–1994) DE 5 (2018–2024) ID 5 (1999–2020) MN 4 (1957–2016) HI 3 (1914–2010) UT 3 (1923–2026) SC 2 (1927–2013) NV 2 (1996–2022) MT 2 (1904–1933) WY 2 (1964–1986) VT 2 (1864–2026) DC 2 (2004–2011)

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