Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lichon, 786 P.2d 1037.

33 citing documents.

Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Counsel may not sit back and allow error to occur when a prompt objection might have allowed the court to cure the problem.”); Ariz. R. Evid.
Luyet v. Mariposa Landscape Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Luyet v. Mariposa Landscape Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at 619-20; (Defendant waived argument on appeal concerning violation of order in limine by the State); (Plaintiff waived similar argument on appeal).
State v. Redondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Redondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See (videotapes); (audiotape).
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(holding that a perfunctory motion in limine considered in summary fashion did not preserve the issue for appeal).
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rochon v. Grant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rochon v. Grant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(stating a motion in limine will preserve an issue on appeal if “the objectionable matter is brought to the attention of the trial court in a manner sufficient to advise the trial court that the error was not waived.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); State v. Burton, 1
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that a motion in limine failed to preserve issue for appeal in part because the judge who tried the case was not the same judge who granted the motion).
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
5 5 The State urges us to apply fundamental error review to Dr. Ferraro’s testimony concerning whether domestic victims tend to lie, because Defendant did not object at trial.
State v. Amina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-44, -18 (App. 1977); (deliberating jury had right to review videotapes properly admitted into evidence).
State v. Garcia-Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia-Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(videotapes); Snowden, 138 Ariz. at 404, 675 P.2d at 291 (audiotape); (transcripts of taped confession).
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Although, in a civil case, a motion in limine may serve as a substitute for an evidentiary objection at trial, Premium Cigars International, P.3d 555 (App. 2004); P.2d 1037 (App. 1989) (objection not required when motion in limine has been made), in the absence of the pertinent trial transcripts, we agree with defendants that we are unable to determine what evidence was presented at trial, whether Romero objected to the evidence at trial, how it was used, and how it mi
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-93, -44 (App. 1990) (holding that jurors possessed “an absolute right” to review videotapes with assistance 4 of video equipment provided by the bailiff when tapes had been admitted into evidence).
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“Rule 22.2 only provides what the jury shall take with them to the jury room, not what they shall only take.” , (not error to allow jury to take VCR player into jury room in order to play videotapes as they saw fit).
State v. Anderson 916 P.2d 1170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Anderson 916 P.2d 1170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Division One of this court advised trial courts in obscenity eases to instruct juries that, if they want to review the tape in the jury rooms, they should not review it piecemeal.
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Because Johnson did not object, the issue has been waived on appeal, , unless it involves fundamental error.