Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fendler, 622 P.2d 23.

42 citing documents.

State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
at ¶ 156; (affirming prelusion of untimely-disclosed witnesses in part because defendant’s “offer of proof was insufficient to fully inform the court of the relevancy, let alone the vitality, of the proposed testimony”).
Swift v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Swift v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶24 Swift misses the mark with its reliance on dictionary definitions, a 1984 Arizona Attorney General (“AG”) opinion (I84-002), and this court’s interpretation of a
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(identifying “general rule” of advice-of-counsel defense under federal law) (citing United States v. Danser, 26 F.R.D.
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
t “a conviction will not be reversed for error in the selection of a petit jury unless the defendant shows actual prejudice” and holding that it applies to alleged “defects in grand jury im-panelment”); , (determining that the failure to include licensed drivers in *531 the jury selection process was not prejudicial); -71 , -30 (App.1980) (holding that alleged errors in excusáis by a jury commissioner “would be confronted by the rule that a conviction will not be reversed for error in the select
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
-71, -30 (App. 1980) (extending “actual prejudice” doctrine to excusals by jury commissioner).
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
“The office of ‘jury commissioner’ was established to assist the courts with the jury selection process and to insulate judges from having to consider every request for excusal.”
State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
White, 102 Ariz. at 163 , 426 P.2d at 797 ; , cert.
State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Nelson 755 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Nelson 755 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
See Rule 15.2, Rules of Criminal Procedure; , , , ce rt.
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Harrelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 697 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Harrelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 697 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
*574 Both McDonald, supra, , seem to limit the use of the guilty plea for impeachment to situations where the state is entitled to show the plea so the defendant cannot leave the impression that the state has something to hide.
State v. Corrales 641 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Corrales 641 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
It is well established that evidence of a co-defendant’s guilty plea is not relevant to the issue of the accused’s guilt or innocence
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
-69 , -28 (App.1980), rev. denied, December 23, 1980, cert, denied, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by