Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lámar, 72 P.3d 831.

66 citing documents.

State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(finding no prejudice where tenuous link between claimed error and prejudicial inference by the jury).
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See, -17 (2007); ¶¶ 48-49, -41 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
See Newell, 212 Ariz. at 403 ¶¶ 67-68, 132 P.3d at 847; ¶ 54
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
“The right to counsel under both the United States and Arizona Constitutions includes an accused’s right to proceed without counsel and represent himself,” ¶ 22, “but only so long as the defendant ‘is able and willing to abide by the rules of procedure and courtroom protocol.’” State v. Whalen, 192 Ariz. 103, 106, (quoting McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
2525 (stating self-representation is “part of the ‘due process of law' that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment” and the Sixth Amendment “implies a right of self-representation”); -36, ¶ 22 , -36 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
to convey his [or her] personal belief about the credibility of a witness,” ¶ 54, and to relay to the jury disagreement with trial court rulings by facial expression.
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
See id.; -38 ¶ 32, -38 (2003) (requiring defendant to establish prejudice when trial court denied continuance).
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See, -17 (2007); -12 (2005); -50 (2003); State v. Cañez, ¶¶ 29-30, -26 (1999).
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
Glassel recognizes that this Court has previously rejected challenges to the Portillo instruction, -41, ¶¶ 48-49, -41 (2003) (citing cases), but asks us to reconsider the issue.
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
See State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431, 441, ¶ 49, ¶ 25, Cañez, 202 Ariz. at 156, ¶¶ 75-76, 42 P.3d at 587.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
See, , 441 ¶ 49, State v. Cañez, , 156 ¶¶ 75-76
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Fundamental error is “ ‘clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial,’ ” , , and is error that goes “to the foundation of the case,” that “takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense,” or that is “of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair
State v. Hampton 92 P.3d 871 Ariz. 2004
A defendant can affirmatively waive the right to counsel at trial, as long as the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent.2 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975); State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431, 435-36 ¶ 22, -36 (2003).