State v. Johnson
Cited by
- State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
- State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. 2020
- State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. 2016
- State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
- State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. 2000
- State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Portillo 898 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1995
- State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Gendron 812 P.2d 626
- State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243
- State v. Jackson 695 P.2d 742
- State v. McVay 622 P.2d 9
- State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637
- State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321
- State v. Hunter 688 P.2d 980
- State v. Johnson 821 P.2d 228
Opinion text
*279 CORCORAN, Justice, dissenting: I too respectfully dissent. This court should affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences. I agree with Justice Mar-tone that the defendant has had a fair trial—“substantial justice has been done.” Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 27. The defendant is entitled to no more. The result of the reversal will be that the victims will be dragged back into court to again testify—if the victims can be found. The victims are entitled to better than that. The majority finds that this court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s error did not affect the verdict; I do not agree. We can and should so find. I also do not agree with the implication by the majority that a party does not have to object during trial if the party feels that objection “would likely have been futile.”