Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lopez, 175 P.3d 682.

134 citing documents.

State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Regardless of whether the narrative description of the assault was for the purposes of medical diagnoses, the State also offered the narrative as a prior consistent statement.
State v. Meeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Meeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
General objections do not suffice, ¶ 4 (App. 2008), and result in review for fundamental error, ¶ 12 (2018); ¶ 30 (2003).
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Because he did not clearly raise this argument below, we review for fundamental error.6 -35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008).
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 19 (2005) (failure to object to alleged trial error results in fundamental error review); -35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (objection at trial on a ground other than the one asserted on appeal does not preserve issue for appeal).
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Lopez , , ¶ 4, (objection on one ground does not preserve issue on another); see also State v. Escalante , , ¶ 12, (argument not raised below reviewed for fundamental, prejudicial error).
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
–35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (an objection on a ground other than the one asserted to the appellate court does not preserve the issue for appeal).
Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
And while relevance is one factor in a court’s 404(b) analysis, ¶ 77 (2017), an objection under Rule 401 is insufficient to preserve a Rule 404(b) objection on appeal, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (“[A]n objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.”).
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 15 (App. 2008) (concluding statements to medical professionals in post-sexual assault examination admissible under Rule 803(4)).
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(objection on one ground does not preserve issue on another ground).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) ().
State v. Clow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Clow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 4, (citations omitted).
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
driving.” , (objection on one ground does not preserve issue on another).
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶6 Coleman raised his equal protection argument below, thus preserving it for review, but forfeited any review of whether his substantive due process rights have been violated except for fundamental, prejudicial error.1 (“objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground”).
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (“[A]n objection on one ground does not preserve the issue [for appeal] on another ground.”) ().
State v. Adkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Adkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.2, ¶ 12, n.2 (App. 2008) (concluding that admission of 5 STATE v. ADKINS Decision of the Court inadmissible hearsay harmless when cumulative with defendant’s own testimony).2 ¶17 Def
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Hamilton, 177 Ariz. at 408, 868 P.2d at 991; see also Ariz. R. Evid.
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(“[A]n 9 STATE v. INGRAM Opinion of the Court the officers found a loaded .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol in a briefcase in the master-bedroom closet.
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19 (2005); -35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008).
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(general objection insufficient to preserve issue for appeal; objection on one ground does not preserve issue on another ground).
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.4, ¶ 17 (App. 2008) (“Generally, issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived.
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.4, ¶ 17 (App. 2008) ( n.2, ¶ 22 (App. 2005), ).
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-35, ¶ 4, -84 (App. 2008).
State v. Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015