# State v. Lavers > Arizona Supreme Court · July 23, 1991 · 168 Ariz. 376 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9615220 ## Case - **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Alfred Edward LAVERS, III, Appellant - **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court - **Decided:** July 23, 1991 - **Citations:** 168 Ariz. 376; 91 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 38; 814 P.2d 333; 1991 Ariz. LEXIS 59 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moeller - **Judges:** Gordon, Moeller, Corcoran, Feldman, Cameron - **Cited by:** 166 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9615220 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that State could introduce tape made by deceased complainant during deadly assault because the tape recorded events confirmed by other circumstantial evidence of the crime. - recognizing that, before a reviewing court may engage in fundamental error analysis, it must first find the trial court committed some error - recognizing that before a reviewing court engages in fundamental error review, it must first conclude the trial court committed some error - explaining this court “must first find that the trial court committed some error” before it engages in fundamental error analysis - finding that victim contemplated fate based on victim's statements as well as the victim witnessing the defendant stab her mother ## Opinion text MOELLER, Justice, specially concurring in part. I concur in all portions of the majority’s opinion except that portion entitled “D. Proportionality Review” which, in my view, is unnecessary. See the concurring opinions of Justices Corcoran and Moeller in State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500 , 815 P.2d 869 (1991). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9615220. Public record. Not legal advice.