Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 561 P.2d 739.

150 citing documents.

State v. Madsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Madsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tabor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tabor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Remy-Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Remy-Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-20, -44 (1977) (finding no error in lack of voluntariness hearing where defendant did not object to admission of his statements)
State v. Toledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Toledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guarino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guarino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
at 450, ¶ 86, 94 P.3d at 1145 ( ).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
4 We find no error in the trial judge’s conduct, and certainly none that constitutes “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for [the] defendant to have had a fair trial.”
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
( , ); State v. (Jessie) Lopez
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Error is fundamental when it goes to the foundation of the defendant’s case or is “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.”
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
¶ 40 “Fundamental error is error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.”
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
(“Fundamental error is error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.”) ( , ).
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
(defining fundamental error as “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial”).
State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
at 155 , 812 P.2d at 628 ( , ).
State v. Pereida 825 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Pereida 825 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
“Fundamental error is error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.”
State v. Gendron 812 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1991
State v. Gendron 812 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1991
State v. Hernandez 805 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Hernandez 805 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Fundamental error has been defined as error going to the foundation of the case or taking an essential right from the defendant, and as “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” -36 , -18 (1981)
State v. Georgeoff 788 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1990
State v. Georgeoff 788 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1990
damental when it reaches “ ‘the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense,’ ” or is an “ ‘error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.’ ” -36 , -18 (1982) ( , , ).
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
*267 Error is fundamental when it reaches “the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense,” , or is an “error of such dimension that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.”
State v. Conner 786 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1990
State v. Conner 786 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1990