Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kemp, 912 P.2d 1281.

74 citing documents.

State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-61 (1996) (“[T]he open door or invited error doctrine means that a party cannot complain about a result he caused.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Jacqueline B. v. Dcs, G.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jacqueline B. v. Dcs, G.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting, under doctrine of invited error, “a party cannot complain about a result he [or she] caused”).
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 33 (App. 2007) (admission of burglary evidence was proper to rebut defendant’s testimony about the relationship with the victim); -61 (1996) (stating limited admission of co-defendant’s statements was proper when questioning implied there was no evidence linking the defendant to the murder).
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“[I]n essence the open door or invited error doctrine means that a party cannot complain about a result he caused.“ -61 (1996) (citation omitted).
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“The rule is most often applied to situations where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal.” Id.; –61 (1996).
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
doctrine means that a party cannot complain about a result he caused.” -61 (1996) (internal quotation omitted).
State v. McKeever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McKeever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 –61 (1996), the Arizona Supreme Court rejected an argument similar to that raised here.
Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–61, –90 (1996) (“[T]he open door or invited error doctrine means that a party cannot complain about a result he caused.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(evidence of a defendant’s consciousness of guilt is relevant and admissible).
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
see also Gibson, ¶¶ 3, 7, 19-20, 44 P.3d at 1002-03, 1004 (remanding for redetermination of whether evidence of third parties‟ nervousness and “severe mental health problems shortly after the murder” adm
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
2616 , 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986)
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
See State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, 76, ¶ 123, (holding that counsel, to avoid preclusion of issue on appeal, must argue issue in body of brief; list of issues in brief is not adequate).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
(holding that counsel, to avoid preclusion of issue on appeal, must briefly argue issue in body of brief and list of issues in brief is not adequate).
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
(stating that failure to object waives a claim of prosecutorial misconduct absent fundamental error).
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
(holding that instances of prosecutorial misconduct are waived if not objected to at trial).
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
P. 18.5(d); , (stating in dicta that a “trial court shall conduct voir dire and in its discretion allow counsel to question jurors,” although Rule 18.5(d) was neither at issue in the case nor meaningfully examined by the court), cert.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
cert, denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct.