Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Logan, 30 P.3d 631.

150 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-66, ¶ 9 (2001) (citations omitted).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
And “[i]f error is 4 STATE v. JERNIGAN Decision of the Court invited, we do not consider whether the alleged error is fundamental.” ¶ 9 (2001).
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 , (“If an error is invited, we do not consider whether the alleged error is fundamental, for doing so would run counter to the purposes of the invited error doctrine.
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See, -33 (2001) (noting appellate courts will not find reversible error where complaining party invited the error).
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error.” -66, ¶ 9 (2001).
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8, (“[W]hen a party requests an erroneous instruction, any resulting error is invited and the party waives his right to challenge the instruction on appeal.”).
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Because the cumulative nature of the proffered expert testimony supported its preclusion, we need not address Wife’s argument that the family court erred in precluding the expert as unqualified pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 702.
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The State offered sufficient evidence for each element of each charge, and Esposito did not offer any 6 Although given Esposito’s statements at sidebar, the doctrine of invited error could preclude his argument on appeal, ¶ 11 (2001), on this record, the court analyzes the issue for fundamental error resulting in prejudice.
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
– 66, ¶¶ 8–9, –33 (2001).
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 8, (“[W]hen a party requests an erroneous instruction, any resulting error is invited and the party waives his right to challenge the instruction on appeal.”).
State v. Leibly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leibly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-66, ¶9, -33 (2001) (party who invites error waives any challenge to results); (probationer waived objections to sex offender registration by failing to object to them).
State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 We note the RAJI’s are not authoritative law or approved by the Arizona Supreme Court, ¶ 12, and that nothing within the plain language of § 13-3417 incorporates the definition of facilitation provided in § 13-1004.
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 50, (citations omitted); -66, ¶¶ 9, 11, -33 (2001) (recognizing the invited error doctrine precludes a party 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-66, ¶ 9, -33 (2001) (“If an error is invited, we do not consider whether the alleged error is fundamental, for doing so would run counter to the purposes of the invited error doctrine.
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[W]hen a party requests an erroneous instruction, any resulting error is invited and the party waives his right to challenge the instruction on appeal.” ¶ 8
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
See Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 585 ¶ 12, 208 P.3d at 236 (reviewing for fundamental error when no objection is made); ¶ 8, (noting that a party who requests an erroneous instruction invites error).
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶7 In order to determine if a party invited error, this court “look[s] to the source of the error, which must be the party urging the error.”
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(explaining RAJI not court-approved instructions but merely proposed instructions created by State Bar of Arizona).
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013