Cited by

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

321 citing documents.

State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(failure to raise objection in trial court waives all but fundamental error).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
Fundamental error is “error of such dimension that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have a fair trial.”
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
Error is fundamental if it is “clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial” and, viewed in the context of the entire trial, is “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” , (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(absent fundamental error, failure to raise issue at trial waives it on appeal).
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 626 (1991) (error fundamental when defendant cannot possibly have had fair trial).
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
(“Fundamental error is error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.”) ( , ).
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
To be fundamental error, “[an] error ‘must be clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.’” , ( , ).
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“To be fundamental, the error ‘must be clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.’” Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572, 858 P.2d at 1175
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999