DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Vanderlinden, 530 P.2d 1107.

27 citing documents.

  • State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    by permitting counsel to decide on tactics.” Gipson, 229 Ariz. at 487, ¶¶ 15–16 (internal quotation marks omitted); –80 (1975) (explaining that when a defendant assesses the evidence presented by the State and concludes it is insufficient “to secure a conviction of the greater crime,” the decision to forego jury instructions on lesser-included offenses may not constitute strategic error but a viable strategy to “secure a comple
  • State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    by permitting counsel to decide on tactics.” Gipson, 229 Ariz. at 487, ¶¶ 15–16 (internal quotation marks omitted); –80 (1975) (explaining that when a defendant assesses the evidence presented by the State and concludes it is insufficient “to secure a conviction of the greater crime,” the decision to forgo jury instructions on lesser-included offenses may not constitute strategic error but a viable strategy to “secure a complet
  • State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    -80 (1975) (declining to extend requirement that the superior court sua sponte instruct on a lesser included offense to cases involving crimes other than homicide).
  • State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    When a defendant assesses the evidence presented by the State and concludes that the evidence may be insufficient “to secure a conviction of the greater crime,” the decision to forego jury instructions on lesser- included offenses may not constitute strategic error, but a viable strategy to “secure a complete acquittal.” –80 (1975); (there may well be cases in which the defendant will be confident enough that the State has not proven murder that he will want to forego lesser-included offense ins
  • State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“[M]ischief might otherwise occur if a party can remain mute when a court omits an unrequested [lesser included offense] instruction, counsel knowing that the judgment will be reversed because of the omission.”) ¶11 Damian argues that his counsel did not invite the testimo
  • State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Conversely, if a defendant in a non-capital case does not request a lesser- included instruction at trial, “no error may be urged on appeal for the failure of the trial court to give an instruction on a lesser included offense.”
  • State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (“No matter how inartfully the defense counsel may be said to have raised his point, it was clear that he was calling the court’s attention to a serious error.”).
  • State v. Brooks 616 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Brooks 616 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    vacated on other grounds
  • State v. Evans 608 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Evans 608 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
    The comment to Rule 21.3(c) provides that: “ * * * , that the court is duty bound in all homicide cases to instruct the jury on all necessarily-included offenses that the evidence will support, regardless of whether or not such instruction is requested.” , , are cases governed by the former criminal rules and are not contrary to the comment.
  • State v. Vowell 544 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Vowell 544 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    the court stated: * * * There are essentially two reasons why we believe that the trial court should not be required to, sua sponte, instruct on lesser included offenses.
  • State v. Arnold 542 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Arnold 542 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    (Citation omitted)” , Vanderlinden did not point out that State v. Madden, supra, was no longer the law, but spoke of it as an exception to the “general rule * * * that in the absence of a request for an instruction on a lesser included offense it was not error for a trial court to fail to give such an instruction.”