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. Evans, 356 P.2d 1106.

132 citing documents.

  • State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    nstruction complained of on appeal and that “equity favors the application of the usual rule of invited error rather than the exceptional rule of fundamental error”) (citation omitted); , (holding that defendant could not “claim error for the first time on appeal by reason of an instruction given at his request”); , (refusing to consider as grounds of error instructions requested by defendant); , 141 P. 713, 714-15 (1914) (declining to reverse conviction based on erroneous jury instruction reque
  • State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
    See, e.g., Diaz, 168 Ariz. at 365 , 813 P.2d at 730 (invited error is waived for appeal purposes); , (party cannot object on appeal to a requested instruction); , (court refused to consider as grounds of error instructions requested by defendant); , (“A party may not complain of instructions given at his request and is bound by the theory of his own instructions.”); Sisson, 16
  • State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
    (a defendant cannot complain on appeal that an instruction placed burden of proving innocence upon defendant, when defendant did not object to instruction at trial and in fact requested it); , , ( , cert.
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Flores 603 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Flores 603 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    stated: “ , : ‘An objection to the admission of evidence must state the reason and if it is not objectionable on the ground stated, it is not error for the court to admit it, even though there might be some other proper reason for its rejection not raised by the objection as made.’ 88 Ariz. at 373 , 356 P.2d
  • State v. Johnson 594 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1979
  • Explained State v. Johnson 594 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1979
    This, however, is required so that the trial court may have an opportunity of itself correcting its error, * * *.” , we explained the holding in White : “The last sentence of State v. White, * * means only that an objection must be lodged either during the final argument of opposing counsel or at the completion of the final argument.
  • State v. Godinez 531 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Godinez 531 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1975
  • Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Evans, 88 Ariz, 364
  • State v. Flynn 514 P.2d 466 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Flynn 514 P.2d 466 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
    : “An objection to the admission of evidence must state the reason and if it is not objectionable on the ground stated, it is not error for the court to admit it, even though there might be some other proper reason for its rejection not raised by the objection as made.” 88 Ariz. at 373 , 356 P.2d
  • State v. Finley 501 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Finley 501 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    An objection to the admission of evidence must state the reason and if it is not objectionable on the ground stated, it is not error for the court to admit it, even though there might be some other proper reason for its rejection not raised by the objection as made.” at 373 , at 1111 (1960).
  • State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
    and although the case was affirmed, the Court stated its strong disapproval of the use of the instruction.
  • State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
    State v. George, supra [ , ]; State v. Evans, supra [ , ].” We find the contention of the defendant that there was prejudicial error unfounded.
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
    State v. Boozer, supra; , cert.
  • State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Although it would appear that the questioned evidence is an inference upon an inference
  • State v. Darby 460 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Darby 460 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
    State v. George, supra [ , ]; State v. Evans, supra [ , ].” 103 Ariz. at p. 383 , 442 P.2d at p. 546 .
  • State v. Frand 453 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Frand 453 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1969
    1878 , 16 L.Ed.2d 689 ; , .