Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 420 P.2d 278.

50 citing documents.

State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
To say Mendoza invited whatever error resulted from his general request to speak with the court would cause an unprecedented expansion of a doctrine that should be approached with “extreme caution.” Lucero, 223 Ariz. at 135, ¶ 18 ().
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
] ”); Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13- 117(B) (”The defendant’s neglect or refusal to be a witness in his own behalf shall not in any manner prejudice him, or be used against him on the trial or proceedings.”); see also Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 613-14 (1965); ¶ 26
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(requiring extreme caution when the error involves a constitutional right) with Logan, 200 Ariz. at 565, ¶ 8 , 30 P.3d at 632 (holding that the usual rule of invited error should apply when the defendant requests the erroneous jury instruction).
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
(stating that comment on defendant’s failure to testify is normally fundamental error); , (holding that direct comment on defendant’s failure to take th
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
( , for the proposition that fundamental error will be found if “the general conduct of the prosecuting counsel was such that it must be presumed to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice”).
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan 884 P.2d 687 Ariz. 1994
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan 884 P.2d 687 Ariz. 1994
Off, 167 Ariz. at 426 , 808 P.2d at 311 ; , State v. Dean, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Huffman 670 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Huffman 670 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Cannon 576 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1978
State v. Cannon 576 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1978
State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
State v. Fleming 571 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1977
State v. Fleming 571 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1977
State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
State v. White, 16 Ariz.App.
State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Rhodes 517 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1973
State v. Rhodes 517 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1973
State v. Murphree 500 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Murphree 500 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
State v. Maloney 464 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1970
State v. Maloney 464 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1970
State v. Dillon 448 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1968
State v. Dillon 448 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1968
State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
“B. The defendant’s neglect or refusal to be a witness in his own behalf shall not in any manner prejudice him, or be used against him on the trial or proceedings.” Our Supreme Court, in passing on another question
State v. Fassler 438 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Fassler 438 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
* * * ” , that there are some situations wherein invited error can be so extreme as to be available on appeal even though the error was invited.
State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Burrell 426 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1967
State v. Burrell 426 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1967
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ; , , that the “very nature of the privilege not to take the witness stand, as an essential part of the right against self-incrimination * * * contemplates a defendant’s free choice not to testify * * * ” The statement here objected to “Now, Bobby Favors said nothing,” taken in the light of the state o