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. Islas, 647 P.2d 1188.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Fichtelman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Fichtelman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Dickinson, 233 Ariz. at 531 ¶ 13; (“[P]rejudice will not be presumed but must appear from the record.”).
  • State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • 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
  • 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
    occur to any one [sic] that the pursuit of such a course could not be fraught otherwise than with most mischievous consequences in the administration of the law”); , (holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived “[b]e-cause the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel”); , (“Generally, a party *220 who participates in or contributes to an error cannot complain of it.”).
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Id.; ¶ 50 , (applying the invited error doctrine when defense counsel failed to object to evidence offered by the State and affirmatively agreed the evidence was admissible); , (“[A] party who participates in or contributes to an error cannot complain of it.”).
  • State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    (“failure to give a certain instruction is not reversible error unless it is prejudicial to the rights of a defendant, and such prejudice "will not be presumed but must appear from the record.”); , (holding that only pre
  • State v. Holm 985 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Holm 985 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Such laxness should not be rewarded.”); (citing with approval Jacob, 67 Ariz. at 113 , 191 P.2d at 736-37 ); , (“[A] party who ...
  • State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
    “[F]ailure to give a certain instruction is not reversible error unless it is prejudicial to the rights of a defendant, and such prejudice will not be presumed but must appear from the record.”
  • State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
    at 4 ( , (emphasis added).
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Newfield 778 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Newfield 778 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
    (where a party participates in or contributes to an error, he cannot complain on appeal).
  • State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984