Cited by

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

151 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-33 (2001) (“[W]e will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error.”).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-33 (2001) (we will not find reversible error when complaining party invited error).
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-66, ¶ 9 , -33 (2001) (noting “[i]f an error is invited, we do not consider whether the alleged error is fundamental”).
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“If an error is invited, we do not consider whether the alleged error is fundamental.
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
The Arizona Supreme Court has “long held that when a party requests an erroneous instruction, any resulting error is invited and the party waives his right to challenge the instruction on appeal.” , *219 565, ¶ 8
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564, ¶ 11
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
-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. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(party may not inject error into record then profit from it on appeal).
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a party from ‘inject[ing] error in the record and then profit[ing] from it on appeal.’” Paris-Sheldon reasons Duron and Alvarez do not control because those cases “did not in any way state that the defendant could not have waited until the charges were refiled and then moved to dismiss them un
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
-66, ¶ 9, 30 P.3d - 20 - 631, 632-33 (2001) (stating that we “will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error”).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
565-66 ¶ 9, -33 (2001) (holding that we will not reverse a criminal conviction on the basis of error invited by the defendant, regardless of whether the error is fundamental).
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 11 , (holding if party injects error in trial proceedings appellate court will not consider whether alleged error is fundamental).
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002