Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lavers, 814 P.2d 333.

270 citing documents.

State v. Loyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(explaining this court “must first find that the trial court committed some error” before it engages in fundamental error analysis).
State v. Loyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
–89, –46 (1991) (indicating that a defendant with the “right not to testify” and a deceased declarant were both equally “unavailable” for purposes of the Confrontation Clause).
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(before we even engage in fundamental error review, this court must first find that the trial court committed some error).
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
Lynch bore “the burden of establishing that the juror [wa]s incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” State v. 25
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶ 20, 115 P.3d at 607
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 567–68, ¶¶ 19– 26, 115 P.3d at 607–08; (recognizing that before a reviewing court engages in fundamental error review, it must first conclude the trial court committed some error).
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arizona Rule of Evidence 901(a) sets forth the requirements for authenticating and identifying evidence and “governs the sufficiency of an evidentiary foundation.”
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.” (1991).
State v. Garcia-Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia-Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.” (1991).
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(1991) (“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.”).
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Moreover, the trial court “does not determine whether the evidence is authentic, but only whether evidence exists from which the jury could reasonably conclude that it is authentic.”
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See id.; (recognizing that before this court engages in fundamental error review, it must first find the trial court committed some error).
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.”
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶32 Rule 901 “governs the sufficiency of an evidentiary foundation” and requires that “authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” (citing Ariz. R. Evid.
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 293 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013