5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2024 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. Hendersongreen2 sentences2016See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005) (noting that to demonstrate that an objected-to error was harmless, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in admitting the evidence “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence”). 2015To demonstrate that the objected-to error was harmless, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in admitting the evidence “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” Id. (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993)). | 2 | 3 |
State of Arizona v. Kevin Dunbargreen1 sentence2024See Dunbar, 550 P.3d at 150 ¶¶ 29–30. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen2 sentences2015To demonstrate that the objected-to error was harmless, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in admitting the evidence “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” Id. (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993)). 2015To demonstrate that the objected-to error was harmless, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in admitting the evidence “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” Id. (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993)). | 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. Lynch
green
1 sentence2013Id. at ¶ 86, 234 P.3d at 610 . ¶ 62 Lynch does not suggest that failure to give an unrequested instruction on double counting always constitutes fundamental error. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.