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. Edwards 529 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Edwards 529 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Gamble 523 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Gamble 523 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1974
    We have previously 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. Sears 522 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Sears 522 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    1 , our Supreme Court recog *25 nized that under an appropriate fact situation it was fundamental error for the trial court, on its own motion, to fail to submit a voluntariness instruction to the jury.
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    However, fundamental error is such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense, , and we must search the record for such error in all criminal appeals.
  • State v. Evans 512 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Evans 512 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1973
    this Court defined fundamental error as “ .
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
    “fundamental error is such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” The right to have notice of the offense charged is an essential right of the defendant, and he may not be convicted of an offense which does not fall within
  • State v. Enriquez 475 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Enriquez 475 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1970
    81 , 21 L.Ed.2d 94 (9th Cir. 1968)
  • State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
    : “Fundamental error, is such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Vaughn 450 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Vaughn 450 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1969
    where we said that exculpatory statements are to be given the same treatment as confessions in regard to the determination of their voluntariness, , where we said that regardless of whether the defendant requests it the court must instruct the jury that before considering whether a confession is true they must first determine whether it was voluntary, and that if they find it to be involuntary they must reject it.
  • State v. Scanlon 450 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Scanlon 450 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1969
    we held that such an instruction was necessary and that the failure to give it was fundamental error which could be raised for the first time on appeal.
  • State v. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    the de *423 fendant’s manacles were removed in the presence of the jury panel.
  • State v. Owen 429 P.2d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Owen 429 P.2d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    at page 223, , at page 785, (1960) the defendant was brought into the courtroom in manacles which were removed in the presence of the jury.
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    People v. Brady, 14 A.D.2d 575 , 218 N.Y.S.2d 705 (1961)
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
    For cases in which we have held that fundamental error was committed by the failure to give instructions, , ; , ; , .
  • State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
    as error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from defendant a right essential to his defense.
  • State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
    overruled on other grounds, , .
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
    for the principle that whether a defendant is prejudiced by being handcuffed rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.
  • State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    The defendants submit, , , that the trial court should have, on its own motion, instructed the jury as to the voluntariness of the exculpatory statement.
  • State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
    56 A.L.R.2d 1166 ; , 141 P. 713 .
  • State v. George 403 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. George 403 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Chavez 403 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Chavez 403 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1965
    we said: “Defendant also urges that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for mistrial on the ground that defendant’s manacles were removed in the presence of members of the jury panel.
  • State v. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965