Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Thomas, 652 P.2d 1380.

37 citing documents.

State v. Schalk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schalk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
and unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error.”
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“The defendant is not entitled to a particular jury, but only a fair one, and unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error.” (citation omitted)); –74, ¶¶ 47–48 (2020).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 18.4(a) (noting “[a] party may challenge the panel on the ground that its selection involved a material departure from the requirements of law,” but “must be in writing, specify the factual basis for the challenge, and make a showing of prejudice to the party”); (“[A]bsent some showing of abuse and resulting prejudice, Rule 18.4(a) does not require reversal so long as a party’s right to an impartial jury is not impaired.”).
State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[U]nless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error.” ()).
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Moreover, even if the juror should not have been excused, we would not reverse Parker’s conviction “unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury.” (error in striking juror for cause does not require reversal absent showing that a fair and impartial jury was not secured)
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(in the context of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.4(c), the court held that “unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error”); , (stating the genera
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
1199 , 117 L.Ed.2d 439 (1992); , 150 n. 11, , 1076 n. 11 (1989)
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
§ 13-709(B) “requires crediting time served against the minimum 25 year portion of the sentence of life imprisonment in the same manner as against any other determinate period of imprisonment.”
State v. Romanosky 782 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1989
State v. Romanosky 782 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1989
(“harmless error doctrine concerns errors of fundamental or constitutional nature”).
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
We have defined fundamental error in the context of jury instructions as “such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.” , ( , ).
State v. Nelson 755 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Nelson 755 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
When you go to the jury room you will choose a foreman who will be in charge during your deliberations and who will sign any verdict.”
State v. Cruz-Mata 674 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1983
State v. Cruz-Mata 674 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1983
(applying credit for presentence custody against the minimum 25-year portion of the sentence).
State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Furthermore, as noted in both State v. Watson, supra, , disagreements as to trial strategy or errors in trial tactics will not support an ineffectiveness claim, as long as the challenged conduct could have had some reasoned basis.
State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Furthermore, , disagreements as to trial strategy or errors in trial tactics will not support an ineffectiveness claim, as long as the challenged conduct could have had some reasoned basis.
Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1983
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982