Cited by

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

321 citing documents.

State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
“Failure to object to a jury instruction below precludes defendant from claiming error on appeal unless the error is fundamental____ Error is fundamental only if it goes to the foundation of the case or deprives the defendant of a right essential to his defense.”
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
State v. Lautzenheiser 881 P.2d 339 Ariz. 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
See, , 154, (citations omitted).
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 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. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.” , see also Ariz.R.Crim.P.
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
Rule 21.3(c), Ariz. R.Crim.P.
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Fagnant 860 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1993
State v. Fagnant 860 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1993
*220 the reason for this doctrine is clear — “without the rule, the system won’t work.” Fundamental error has been described as error that is “clear” and “egregious,” id., error that the trial court should recognize on its own initiative, , 487 P.2
State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(defining fundamental error).
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
By failing to object, defendant waived all but fundamental error, “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” , ( , ).
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Only “overriding considerations concerning the integrity of the system will excuse a party’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court.”
State v. Zanzot 853 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Zanzot 853 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Anderson 850 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Anderson 850 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1993
the error must be clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.”