Cited by

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

150 citing documents.

State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
It usually, if not always, involves the loss of federal constitutional rights.”
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
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. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
State v. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
It usually, if not always, involves the loss of federal constitutional rights.”
State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
The court noted: Fundamental error has been variously defined by this court as ‘such error as goes to the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense,’ , and as ‘error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is impossible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.’
State v. Acuna 710 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Acuna 710 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Additionally, it has been said to be “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.”
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
180 , 78 L.Ed.2d 161 (1983)
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
State v. Melendez, supra
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lopez 657 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Lopez 657 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
“While it is the court’s duty to question potential jurors, the extent of voir dire examination to determine the presence or absence of prejudice is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
-840 (1981); , Rule 18.5(d), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Melendez, supra
State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
*410 State v. Bullock, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Martinez 596 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Martinez 596 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Bishop 576 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1978
State v. Bishop 576 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1978
1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964)
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Riggins, supra.