DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

127 citing documents.

  • State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    The giving of *628 the instruction was therefore fundamental error, , and defendant’s conviction on this charge must be vacated.
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Jones 895 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Jones 895 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    in which the defense to a charge of murder was that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense.
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
    ure to object to a jury instruction below precludes defendant from claiming error on appeal unless the error is fundamental____ Error is fundamental only if it goes to the foundation of the case or deprives the defendant of a right essential to his defense.”
  • State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    at 155 , 812 P.2d at 628
  • State v. Lautzenheiser 881 P.2d 339 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
    This court, in discussing fundamental error, has stated: Error is fundamental when it reaches “the foundation of the ease 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.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
    We have defined fundamental error as error that “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.”
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
    Fundamental error goes to “the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense;” it must be “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 155 , 812 P.2d at 628 ( , ).
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
    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.’” , (citations omitted)
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    By failing to object, defendant waived all but fundamental error, “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” , ( , ).
  • Currier v. Western Newspapers, Inc. 855 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Zanzot 853 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Zanzot 853 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    424 n. 4, , 244 n. 4 (1988).
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
    We first determine whether there was error, and if so, whether the error was prejudicial in light of the entire record “before the error can be labeled as fundamental.”
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Pereida 825 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Pereida 825 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
    “Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.” Lavers, 814 P.2d at 341 -42 (citing Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 ; , ).
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218
  • State v. Gendron 812 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Gendron 812 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1991
    Citing Smith and other authorities, we have more recently held: 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.’ ” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
    “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.’ ” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990