Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sorrell, 645 P.2d 1242.

52 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
¶36 Melendez and the court of appeals rely, in part, to conclude that the State’s impeachment violated Melendez’s due process rights.
State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶26 our supreme court considered whether the prosecutor’s various references to the defendant’s post-arrest silence constituted reversible error.
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, e.g., Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 (1976)
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
–30 (1982) (finding fundamental prejudicial error where prosecutor deliberately and repeatedly elicited testimony on invocation of right to counsel and focused on testimony in argument).
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
We have held similar comments to be improper and have reversed convictions for improper comments on a defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights.5 -30, -44 (1982).
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Henley, 141 Ariz. at 468-69 , 687 P.2d at 1223-24 (reversal required only " 'where the fundamental error harms the defendant’ ”), , see also Henderson, , 115 P.3d at 607 .
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See, -69 , -24 (1984); , , , ” 158 Ariz. at 424 n. 4, 763 P.2d at 244 n. 4 (1988).
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Fourth, were the comments “deliberately or accidently placed before the jury?” Id.; see also Keeley, 178 Ariz. at 236 , 871 P.2d at 1172 (to find a deliberate error harmless “would just encourage similar constitutional error in the future”); , (appellate courts are reluctant to find error harmless “when it appears that the error was deliberate and willful”).
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Although the harmless error analysis does apply to Doyle error, , appellate courts are reluctant to find the error harmless “when it appears that the error was deliberate and willful,”
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)
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. Marquez-Sosa 779 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Marquez-Sosa 779 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); , (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); , (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error).
State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Garland 756 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Garland 756 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Even a finding of fundamental error does not require reversal “when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and it can be said that the error did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute significantly to the verdict.”
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
Even if we agree that the defendant should have been able to present this evidence to the jury, in light of the overwhelming evidence presented against the defendant, we do not think that this exclusion “contribute[d] significantly to the verdict,”
State v. Salcido 681 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Salcido 681 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Most recently, , the court stated: “We believe that a further comment is necessary.
State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 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. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983