Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Sisson v. State, 141 P. 713.
- State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
State v. Jones
559 P.3d 1112
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
To support this contention
- 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
f 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); , 141 P. 713, 714-15 (1914) (declining to reverse conviction based on erroneous jury instruction requested by defendant, and noting that the policy of reversing eases when error occurred at defendant’s invitation “would, indeed, be unwise, for it
- State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
-
State v. Logan
30 P.3d 631
Ariz. 2001
141 P. 713 (1914), we considered an erroneous instruction that placed a burden of proof upon the defendant.
- 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
141 P. 713, 714-15 (1914), in which our supreme court succinctly stated: “[T]he party urging [an erroneous instruction] may not be heard in this court to decry a result fashioned by his own handiwork.” Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the instant case.
- State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
-
State v. Diaz
813 P.2d 728
Ariz. 1991
1380 (1950)); , 141 P. 713 (1914) (even if shifts burden of proof)
- State v. Garcia 570 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1977
-
State v. Garcia
570 P.2d 488
Ariz. 1977
141 P. 713 (1914); State v. Beers, 8 Ariz.App.
- State v. Vanderlinden 530 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Vanderlinden 530 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Blankenship
406 P.2d 729
Ariz. 1965
56 A.L.R.2d 1166 ; , 141 P. 713 .
- State v. Lee 295 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1956
-
State v. Lee
295 P.2d 380
Ariz. 1956
Sisson v. State, 1914, , 141 P. 713 ; Hann v. State, 1926, , 247 P. 129 ; Bradley v. State, 1929, , 279 P. 256 ; Kinsey v. State, 1937, , , 125 A.L.R.
- State v. Polan 293 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1956
-
State v. Polan
293 P.2d 931
Ariz. 1956
The compelling reason why the omission of the court to give special instructions upon particular features of the case is not reversible error is most cogently expressed by former Chief Justice Franklin in the leading case of Sisson v. State, 1914, , 141 P. 713, 715 .
- State v. Serna 211 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1949
-
State v. Serna
211 P.2d 455
Ariz. 1949
141 P. 713 ; , 229 P. 939 ; , .
- State of Arizona v. Pollock 114 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1941
- State of Arizona v. Pollock 114 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1941
- Sullivan v. State of Arizona 55 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
- Sullivan v. State of Arizona 55 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
- Bradley v. State 279 P. 256 Ariz. 1929
- Bradley v. State 279 P. 256 Ariz. 1929
- Douglas v. State 225 P. 335 Ariz. 1924
- Douglas v. State 225 P. 335 Ariz. 1924
- Southwest Cotton Co. v. Ryan 199 P. 124 Ariz. 1921
- Southwest Cotton Co. v. Ryan 199 P. 124 Ariz. 1921
- Vincent v. State 145 P. 241 Ariz. 1914