Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hunter, 688 P.2d 980.

264 citing documents.

State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(“Fundamental error is ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ”).
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
Fundamental error is “ ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ” Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572 , 858 P.2d at 1175 ( , ).
State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
1578 , 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994)( , ).
State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“Fundamental error is ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’” , ( , ), cert.
State v. Dalglish 901 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Dalglish 901 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
guilty.” , the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that this instruction constitutes fundamental error.
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s argument, , (jury instruction in self-defense case stating, “If you decide that the defendant’s conduct was justified, you must find the defendant not guilty,” was fundamental error).
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Fagnant 860 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1993
State v. Fagnant 860 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1993
1781 , 32 L.Ed.2d 121 (1972), and error of such magnitude that it deprives the defendant of a fair trial
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Fundamental error is “error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.”
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Johnson 842 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1992
Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In this case, , if Roberta introduces sufficient evidence of her motive to raise the presumption in (C), the burden shifts to the state to rebut that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt under subsection (A) by showing that her response was objectively unreasonable.
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
We granted defendant’s , and whether Hunter should apply retroactively to defendant’s case.
State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
State v. Dorman 805 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1991
State v. Dorman 805 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1991
-90 , -82 (1984) (noting that Garcia and Denny would be directly on point and would require reversal if the defendant requested a self-defense instruction and the requested instruction was refused).
State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Appellant contends that the giving of the latter instruction constituted fundamental error
State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(the rule announced in State v. Hunter, supra, is fully retroactive).
State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the trial court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense.
State v. Schaefer 790 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Schaefer 790 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the Arizona Supreme Court held that giving a similar general instruction constituted fundamental error because it could confuse the jury as to the burden of proof regarding elements of justification.
State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the Arizona Supreme Court held that it was fundamental error to fail to instruct the jury (a) that a defendant only needs to present evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about whether he acted in self-defense, and (b) once defendant presents such evidence, the burden *356 shi
State v. Barrios 781 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Barrios 781 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The contested instruction stated “[I]t is a defense to a charge of molestation of a child that the defendant was not motivated by a sexual interest.” , the Arizona Supreme Court found that the instruction “[I]f you decide the defendant’s conduct was justified, you must find the defendant not guilty” was objectionable because the jury could have interpreted it as meaning that the defendant had the burden to prove self-defense.
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
( , ); , (similar holding on justification instruction); Renforth, 155 Ariz. at 388 , 746 P.2d at 1318 (insanity defense).