Skip to main content

State v. Harris

Citations

  • 754 P.2d 1139
  • 157 Ariz. 35
  • 8 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
  • 1988 Ariz. LEXIS 52

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “When no objection is made until after the challenged jurors have been excused, the possibility for an immediate remedy for unconstitutional action has been lost.”
  • The purpose of the contemporaneous objection requirement is to allow the court to remedy objectionable action; a party cannot \permit an error to go unrectified and then [later] claim the right to a mistrial or a new trial.\
  • The purpose of the contemporaneous objection requirement is to allow the court to remedy objectionable action; a party cannot “permit an error to go unrectified and then [later] claim the right to a mistrial or a new trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Feldman, Cameron, Holohan, Moeller, Gordon, Ariz, Const, Livermore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.