Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gendron, 812 P.2d 626.

321 citing documents.

State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(recognizing the failure to raise an issue at trial waives all but fundamental error.).
State V, Harney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State V, Harney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Tatlow 290 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Tatlow 290 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Such error must be “„clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.‟” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-66 , -99 (App.1991) (holding that failure to instruct on the former offense was not error because it was undisputed that defendant failed to stop when pursued, and because his defense was justification, if he was guilty, he could only “be guilty of the offense charged and no other”)
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“Fundamental error is that which is ‘clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.’ ” ¶ 62 , ( , ).
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
The record confirms he did not object when the trial court referred to §13-604.01 as the sentencing provision for each count; he has therefore waived all but fundamental error review.5 P.3d 796 (2000); P.2d 626 (1991).
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
dant who fails to object at trial forfeits the right to obtain appellate relief except in those rare cases that involve “error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 ; , (holding that fundamental error is that which is “clear, egregious and curable only via a new trial”).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
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 trial.”
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
However, Defendant’s counsel declined to object to the court’s ruling and did not request a separate jury finding, “failure to raise an issue at trial, including failure to request a jury instruction, waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.” , (citations omitted); see also Ariz. R.Crim.
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
Fundamental error is error that is “curable only via a new trial.”
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
*233 627 (1991) (stating that failure to raise an issue at trial waives all but fundamental error).
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 626 (1991) (failu re to raise obj ection in trial co urt waives all but fundamental error).