Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Burton, 697 P.2d 331.

69 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Joseph Michael Nolan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
(“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.” (alteration in Anthony) ()), (when court does not rule on motion in limine, motion does not preserve defendant’s objection if he fails to raise issue at trial).
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Similarly, because evidence that gives rise to a reasonable inference of guilt is sufficient to support a conviction, evidence is not less probative merely because it is circumstantial, Bible, 175 Ariz. at 560 n.1; see Rev. Ariz. Jury Instr.
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A conviction may be proven “by circumstantial evidence alone.”
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
As a result, a defendant may preserve an issue for appeal without saying the word “objection.” ¶ 18 (App. 2016); (When “a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”).
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See, (“Fingerprints are direct evidence and their presence alone can be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”); (“It is well established in our state that a crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone, and that fingerprints are a means of pos
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rochon v. Grant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rochon v. Grant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(stating a motion in limine will preserve an issue on appeal if “the objectionable matter is brought to the attention of the trial court in a manner sufficient to advise the trial court that the error was not waived.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); (“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
("The probative value of evidence is not reduced because it is circumstantial."); (conviction may be based only on circumstantial evidence).
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A conviction may be proven “by circumstantial evidence alone.”
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶5 “[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.” ¶ 38, ( ).
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
But “where a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”
Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(“where a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial”); see also State Bar Committee comment, Ariz. R. Civ.
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
5 , (“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”) (emphasis added); cf. Laplace-Bayard v. Battle, 295 F.3d 157, 164 (1st Cir.2002) (holding plaintiffs “proceeded at th
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
(“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”).
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
(defendant’s fingerprints on pack of gum left by robber on store counter); State v. Spain, 27 Ariz.App.
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
State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
Ordinarily, absent fundamental error, objection for the first time on appeal is waived; however, “where a motion in li-mine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
An error is fundamental when it goes to the “foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.”
State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
We have defined fundamental error as “error that goes to the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.”
State v. Marquez-Sosa 779 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989