Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Norgard, 442 P.2d 544.

45 citing documents.

State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) (defendant suffers no prejudice when instructions, read as a whole, adequately reflect the law and are substantially free from error)
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
If the instructions “are ‘substantially free from error,’ the defendant suffers no prejudice by their wording.”
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
1439 , 39 L.Ed.2d 487 (1974), and are “substantially free from error,” , the defendant suffers no prejudice by their wording.
State v. Smith 762 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
State v. Smith 762 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
State v. Haas 675 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1983
State v. Haas 675 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1983
State v. Morales 630 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1981
State v. Lemon 521 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1974
State v. Lemon 521 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1974
State v. Steed 506 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1973
State v. Steed 506 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1973
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
We held, , : “ * * * In addition, we might point out that the errors in the instruction were not complained of at the trial, but are being raised for the first time on appeal.
State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
at 259 , at 243 (1970); at 382 , at 545 (1968).
State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
at 259 , at 243 (1970); at 382 , at 545 (1968).
State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
State v. Peats 475 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
State v. Peats 475 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
546 in this language: “We have held many times that this Court will only consider such questions *256 as were raised at trial with respect to errors or omissions in the giving of instructions unless such claimed error is so fundamental that it is manifest the defendant did not receive a fair tria
State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
State v. French, 104 Ariz. *260 359
State v. Salerno 457 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1969
State v. Salerno 457 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1969
The question is whether there is competent evidence to support the conclusions found.” , ,.
State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
we held: “* * * we might point out that the-errors in the instruction were not complained of at the trial, but are being-raised for the first time on appeal.
State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
We held in State v. Norgard, ■ P.2d 544 : “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction the evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to the state, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved against defendant.
State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
disposes of defendant’s contention in this regard.
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
The jurors shall apply to the facts the law as given to them by the court.” This Court’s , : “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction the evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to the state, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved against defendant.