DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pulliam, 349 P.2d 781.

124 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Thus, the omission of the instruction did not constitute “a mere failure to instruct,” it made the instructions given misleading.
  • State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
    Mincey, 130 Ariz. at 397 , 636 P.2d at 645 ( , ); Defendant asserts that the omissions in the jury instructions constituted fundamental error.
  • State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    is such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” , overruled on other grounds
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
    Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 ( , overruled on other grounds, , ).
  • State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Fundamental error has been described as “such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” , reversed on other grounds sub.
  • State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Wussler 679 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Wussler 679 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1984
    1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982)
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    overruled on other grounds.
  • State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
    takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. at 397 , 636 P.2d at 645 ( , ).
  • State v. Williams 664 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Williams 664 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1983
    State v. Edwards, supra, 111 Ariz. at 361 , 529 P.2d at 1178 (1974)
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
    Error is fundamental only if it “goes to the foundation of the case, or * * * takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. at 397 , 636 P.2d at 645 ( , ).
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
    In the context of jury instructions, this court has defined fundamental error as “such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.”
  • State v. McGann 645 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McGann 645 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1982
    Fundamental error is “error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.” , overruled on other grounds
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
    We have held that “in a criminal case, the trial judge is required to instruct the jury on his own motion upon the law relating to the facts of the case and upon matters vital to a proper consideration of the evidence.”
  • State v. Porter 595 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Porter 595 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1979
    *455 , for the proposition that it is fundamental error for the trial court not to instruct the jury on the manner in which a confession should be considered in its deliberations.
  • State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Overruled State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Porter 595 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Porter 595 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Para 583 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Para 583 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. White 564 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. White 564 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1977
    That failure, however, does not prevent review of the issue on appeal since deprivation of a defendant’s right not to testify and misplacement of the burden of proof constitute fundamental error which “goes to the foundation of the case” and “takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.”
  • State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    78 , vacated on other grounds
  • State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gates 542 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gates 542 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 21.3(c).