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. White, 770 P.2d 328.

93 citing documents.

  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ¶35 “Declaring a mistrial is an unusual remedy for trial error and should not be resorted to unless justice requires such a result.”
  • State v. King 984 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Young 965 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Young 965 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    “Declaring a mistrial is an unusual remedy for trial error and should not be resorted to unless justice requires such a result.”
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
    -34 , -38 (1989); , (stating that trial court is in better position to judge effect of prosecutor’s comments on jury) ( , ).
  • State v. Graves 932 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Graves 932 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    “Fundamental error exists where the error goes to the foundation of the case or deprives the defendant of an essential right to his defense.”
  • Smith v. Saxon 918 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Smith v. Saxon 918 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Fullem 912 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Fullem 912 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    “Where, however, [the court] determines the error to be fundamental, the defendant can raise it on appeal, despite his failure to object in trial court.” , '
  • State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
  • 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. Gissendaner 865 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Gissendaner 865 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Church 854 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Church 854 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    t , in which case the supreme court held that this paragraph “undoubtedly define[d] reasonable doubt in traditionally acceptable terms.” Similarly, in State v. White, the supreme court held that an instruction containing essentially the same definition of reasonable doubt as the one at issue was “in and of itself, adequate,” -32 , -37 (1989).
  • State v. Johnson 821 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Johnson 821 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Gendron 812 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Gendron 812 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1991
    21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; -02 , -53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, , -42 , -79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S.
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989