Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. King, 763 P.2d 239.

127 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Preston Alton Strong 555 P.3d 537 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Preston Alton Strong 555 P.3d 537 Ariz. 2024
See, (“Where, under the facts of the case, the error affects the primary or sole issue, we are likely to find fundamental error.”); (holding that improper burden shifting to a defendant constitutes fundamental error).
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(requiring prejudice be shown when any unobjected-to error occurred at trial).
State v. Lister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that after determining that error occurred, a court must evaluate the prejudicial nature of the error) (citation omitted).
Sherri C. v. Dcs, T.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sherri C. v. Dcs, T.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(finding misstatement of the burden of proof is fundamental error).
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
n.6, n.6 (1988), citing 1 Banda asserted below that the seven-year limitations period prescribed by the version of A.R.S.
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Clear and convincing evidence creates a high probability that a proposition is true, ¶ 75 , , but need not establish that it is certainly or unambiguously true
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Furthermore, “ ‘the prej *564 udicial nature of the unobjeeted-to error must be evaluated in light of the entire record’ before the error can be labeled as fundamental.” , ( , ).
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
See United States v. Owens, 854 F.2d 432, 436 n.8 (11th Cir. 1988); -23, -43 (1988).
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶ 20; see also Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90, 688 P.2d at 982
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
See Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 155 , 812 P.2d at 628 ; see also Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 (holding that defendant must prove fundamental error exists, and is of such magnitude that he could not have received a fair trial); , (holding that after determining that error occurred, a court must evaluate the prejudicial nature of the error).
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
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
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Garnica 98 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Garnica 98 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“Error is fundamental when it reaches ‘the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense,’ or is an ‘error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.’ ” , (-36 , -18 (1981)).
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
An error is fundamental only if it is “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” , (citations omitted).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
¶ 42 Because Moody has waived this claim by failing to interpose timely objections or file a motion in limine, he must demonstrate that any error “contributed] to or significantly affect[ed] the verdict.”
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶22 In contrast, our supreme court has noted, albeit in dicta, that a “statute of limitations defense must be raised or it is waived.” n.6, 763 n.6 (1988), citing Unite d States v. W ild, 551 F.2d 418 (D .C. Cir. 1977).
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(“[A] ‘firm belief or conviction’ is truer to the clear and convincing standard____”) ( , (“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a fir
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(“[A] ‘firm belief or conviction’ is truer to the clear and convincing standard .
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(assessing on review whether evidence adduced at trial satisfied the clear-and-convincing test); Terrazas, 189 Ariz. at 584 , 944 P.2d at 1198 (assessing whether evidence admitted under preponderance standard would have been admitted under clear-and-convincing standard); -23 , -43 (1988) ( , but preferring to define “clear and convincing” as “highly probable,” , ).
State v. Orendain 932 P.2d 1325 Ariz. 1997
State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996