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. Anderson, 517 P.2d 508.

106 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
  • Distinguished State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
    ¶38 The court of appeals also relied on three pre-Doyle and pre-Anderson cases—
  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    g. See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 26 (concluding that the evidence was not overwhelming as part of fundamental error analysis); (concluding that prosecutor’s improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify did not contribute to the jury’s verdict given the “overwhelming evidence of guilt and the context within which it was made”); (applying fundamental error review and affirming because the overwhelming evidence of guilt did not require reversal, but cautioning that “fundamental error is
  • State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶19 the prosecutor asked the defendant a question about his failure to share his version of events before trial.
  • State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (“When a defendant makes a statement at trial which is inconsistent with an earlier statement his credibility is clearly in question.”).
  • State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 141, ¶19 (depriving defendant of a constitutional right is fundamental error); (raising an inference of guilt from silence or request for an attorney is fundamental error).
  • State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-23 (1967)
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    The court denied the motion noting that “the way the court dealt with it during the trial was appropriate.” See, -241 (1973).
  • State v. Devorce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Devorce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    In contrast to contradictory statements at trial, a defendant’s “silence at the time of arrest is not an inconsistent or contradictory statement.” (emphasis added) (citation and quotations omitted).
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -71 (1971) (affirming denial of a motion for mistrial after concluding any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under similar circumstances); -41 (1973) (noting a single question and answer regarding a defendant’s failure to tell his story to the police, standing alone without objection or further discussion, might not rise to the level of reversible error).
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“When a defendant makes a statement at trial which is inconsistent with an earlier statement[,] his credibility is clearly in question.”).
  • 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
    By thus approaching the precipice of fundamental error, the prosecution runs the risk of having an otherwise good case reversed when, on appeal the evidence of guilt is less than overwhelming.” State v. 8
  • State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (acknowledging the doctrine of harmless error may be applied “when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the record reflects that the error, though fundamental, did not contribute to the guilty verdict”).
  • State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    See, -69 , -24 (1984); , , , ” 158 Ariz. at 424 n. 4, 763 P.2d at 244 n. 4 (1988).
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Although the harmless error analysis does apply to Doyle error, , appellate courts are reluctant to find the error harmless “when it appears that the error was deliberate and willful,”
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    at 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 422
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Cole 734 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Cole 734 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Vaughn 708 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Vaughn 708 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
    2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)
  • State v. Diaz 688 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Diaz 688 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984