Cited by

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

321 citing documents.

State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Beltran 942 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Beltran 942 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
We have held that error is fundamental only when it is “clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.”
State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
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
(“This provision makes any defects harmless error unless timely raised under Rule 16.”) B. Defective Verdict Forms It is also well established that Appellant cannot object to the forms of verdict for the first time on appeal unless the error was “fundamental.” , , ; see also Rule 21.3(c) (party who fails to object to verdict forms waives the error on appeal).
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
State v. Torres-Soto 927 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Torres-Soto 927 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
We conclude that the $85,875 in surcharges and attorneys’ fees amounted to fundamental error because the issue presented is “so important that overriding considerations concerning the integrity of the system [of justice] will excuse a party’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court.”
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
(defining fundamental error as “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial”).
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
(defining fundamental error as “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. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Ekmanis 901 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Ekmanis 901 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
1635 , 128 L.Ed.2d 358 (1994)
State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994