DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. James, 297 P.3d 182.

122 citing documents.

  • State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Accordingly, [Trotter] ‘bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”’” ¶ 11, (citations omitted).
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Accordingly, [the defendant] ‘bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”’” ¶ 11, (citations omitted).
  • State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Accordingly, Coulter “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11, (quotations and citations omitted).
  • State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Accordingly, [Gonzalez] ‘bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”’” ¶ 11, (quoting cases).
  • State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    This court has previously determined “that instructing a jury on a non-existent theory of criminal liability is fundamental error.” see also Dickinson, 314 P.3d at 1285; Ontiveros, 81 P.3d at 333.
  • State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Accordingly, [Garcia] ‘bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”’” ¶ 11, (citations omitted).
  • State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Instead, evaluating prejudice under the fundamental error standard of review is a fact-intensive inquiry and varies “depending upon the type of error that occurred and the facts of a particular case.” Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 26, 115 P.3d at 608; ¶ 15
  • State v. Dickinson 314 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Dickinson 314 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    “Accordingly, [Dickinson] ‘bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ’ ” ¶ 11 , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013