Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Diaz, 813 P.2d 728.

44 citing documents.

State v. Kim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
vacated in part on other grounds
State v. Guzman-Leal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Guzman-Leal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of her defense at trial, the requisite knowledge could be established by showing that Defendant was aware of the high probability that the packages in her trunk contained marijuana “and that [s]he acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the true contents of the packages.” P.2d 728 (1991).
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶30 Fundamental error is an “exceptional rule” with a “narrow applicability.” -66, -31 (1991).
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
at 565, ¶ 8 , 30 P.3d at 633 (finding that defendant invited error by requesting the theft instruction complained of on appeal and that “equity favors the application of the usual rule of invited error rather than the exceptional rule of fundamental error”) (citation omitted); , (holding that defendant could not “claim error for the first time on appeal by reason of an instruction given at his request”); , (refusing to consider as grounds of error instructions requested by defendant); Sisson v.
State of Arizona v. Anson Rydell Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Anson Rydell Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
§ 13-3408(A), may be proven by evidence that a defendant took actions to avoid learning the type of drug involved, vacated in part on other grounds, P.2d 728 (1991), 7 our jurisprudence has never relieved the state of the burden of proving the culpable mental state set forth in § 13-3405(A)(4).
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶6 P.2d 435 (App. 1990), vacated in part on other grounds, P.2d 728 (1991), a case factually similar to this case.2 There, the defendant admitted transporting an illegal substance but claimed ignorance of the specific type of substance he had transported.
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
¶ 7 , the court of appeals reversed the trial court, finding the invited error doctrine inapplicable and the error fundamental.
State v. Miranda 22 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2001
State v. Miranda 22 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2001
(holding that where a defendant requests an instruction and later alleges fundamental error, any error is "invited error at its worst, and it is waived for appeal purposes.").
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“We have long held that a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court gave an instruction that he specifically requested.”
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
813 F.2d 728 , 730 (1991) (discussing cases in which Arizona courts had declined to apply invited error doctrine to defendant’s request of flawed RAJI).
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(When a defendant requests an in- *428 struction and later claims fundamental error, any error is “invited error at its worst, and it is waived for appeal purposes.”).
State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
(when defendant requests an instruction and later claims fundamental error, any error is “invited error at its worst, and it is waived for appeal purposes.”).
State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rivera 868 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Rivera 868 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(fundamentally erroneous jury instruction injected into the record by defendant’s request cannot serve as a basis for the reversal of his conviction).
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
(party could not complain on appeal about the giving of an instruction he *448 himself requested).
State v. Witwer 856 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Witwer 856 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(“knowingly” means, with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person is aware or believes that his or her conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists); , (state required to show that the defendant knew that he was transporting a narcotic drug), vacated in part on other grounds
State v. Moreno 844 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Moreno 844 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991