Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Finch, 46 P.3d 421.

28 citing documents.

State v. Espizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Espizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
DISCUSSION ¶6 If a defendant fails to object to a jury instruction, “we review only for fundamental error.” ¶ 19 (2002); ¶ 12 (2018).
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 20 (2002), supplemented, (finding that when a shooting victim was not found quickly enough to save him proximate cause was not at issue because the gunshot wounds were the cause of death).
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶23 “If a party fails to object to an error or omission in a jury instruction, we review only for fundamental error.” ¶ 19 (2002).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19, (citing Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
¶ 46, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 954, 122 S. Ct. 2654 (mem.); see also Cromwell, 211 Ariz. at 181, §58, 119 P.3d at 459; ¶ 50
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
¶ 50, (citing State v. Rossi, 146 Ariz. 359, 366, ).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Absent fundamental error, a defendant cannot complain if the court fails to sua sponte give limiting instructions, ¶ 19, or to sua sponte order a mistrial
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
¶ 18 , see also Cañez, 202 Ariz. at 156, ¶¶ 75-76, 42 P.3d at 587 .
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Sullivan 69 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sullivan 69 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
t guilty” for the phrase “If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he/she is not guilty, you must give him/her the benefit of the doubt and find him/her not guilty.” Interestingly, the portion of the Portillo instruction that the judge did not give is the portion which other defendants have claimed “improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant.” ¶ 18