Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

State v. Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-35, ¶ 4, -84 (App. 2008) (objection on one ground does not preserve objection on another ground; appellate court then reviews other ground for fundamental error).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 19-20, (“[A]n objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.”).
Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶¶ 5-6, (noting that defendant’s failure to object to the introduction of testimony on the grounds of hearsay waived the issue on appeal).
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 4, (“[A] general objection is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal.
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Valverde, 208 P.3d at 236; (“[A] general objection is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal,” and “an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.”).
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-68, ¶¶ 19-20 , -08 (2005), -35, ¶ 4 , -84 (App.2008), we must review only for fundamental error because Hines’s objection at trial was not directed to the characterization of the class 5 felony as a lesser-included offense.
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(objection on one ground does not preserve objection on another).
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“[A]n objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.”).
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
However, “an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground” and “[w]hen a party fails to object properly, we review solely for fundamental error.” -35, ¶ 4 , -84 (App.2008).
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“And an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue [for appeal] on another ground.”
State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“And an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue [for appeal] on another ground.”
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“And an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue [for appeal] on another ground.”
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“ ‘If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.’ ”), , , (appellate court may address argument otherwise waived); n. 4 , , 687 n. 4 (App.2008) (exercising discretion to address issues first raised in reply brief).
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
See Fulminante, 161 Ariz. at 244-45 , 778 P.2d at 609-10 (holding that the admission of involuntary confession is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when it is cumulative to an admissible confession); , 436 n. 2, ¶ 12, , 685 n. 2 (App.2008) (admission of inadmissible hearsay harmless when cumulative with defendant’s own testimony).
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
And an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.” ¶ 4 , (internal citations omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by