Cited by

¶7 Moreover, although we will not overlook fundamental error when we see it, STATE v. PESQUEIRA Opinion of the Court 641, 650 (App. 2007), here we find no error, fundamental or otherwise.

(absent argument, fundamental error claim waived on appeal); (court will not ignore fundamental error if it finds it).

And, the court’s discretion to engage in “‘individualized procedures designed to promote the ends of justice in each case that comes before’” it is limited in that such procedures may not be “‘inconsistent with statutory or constitutional provisions or other rules of the court.’”

¶ 32, (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”).

(“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”); (“prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental right that is not waived by the failure to ra

(“[W]e will not ignore [fundamental error] when we find it.”).

(noting fundamental error argument waived if not asserted); (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”).

(noting fundamental error argument waived if not asserted); (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”).

§ 13-412(C) (duress defense unavailable for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32, (court will not ignore fundamental error if it finds it).

(failure to argue fundamental error on appeal waives argument); (court will not ignore fundamental error if it finds it).

§ 13-805;1 see also Fernandez, Section 13-805 has been amended since the theft offenses.

(fundamental error argument waived on appeal); (court will not ignore fundamental error if found); -15, -16 (App. 1987) (issue on appeal regarding instruction on lesser-included offense waived when defendant objected to instruction below on different ground).

Although we will not ignore fundamental error when we see it, , Herrera must show “both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice,” Henderson, , 115 P.3d at 607 .

Id.; (court will not ignore fundamental error if it finds it), cert.

2 (App. 2008) (failure to allege fundamental error on appeal waives argument); (court will not ignore fundamental error it discovers).

In addition, ”[a]n appellate court may find fundamental error even if the issue is not raised on appeal by a defendant.” Henderson, n. 6 , 115 P.3d at 611 n. 6 (Hurwitz, J., concurring); , 232 n. 1, , 796 n. 1 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring); , (court “will not ignore” fundamental sentencing error if found).

In addition, “[a]n appellate court may find fundamental error even if the issue is not raised on appeal by a defendant.” Henderson, n.6, 115 P.3d at 611 n.6 (Hurwitz, J., concurring); n.1, n.1 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring); (court “will not ignore” fundamental sentencing error if found).

is within the trial court’s discretion.”); State v. Fernandez, 216 ¶¶ 16-17, -48 (App. 2007) (no error in trial court’s “allowing additional closing argument” on issue of premeditation to help resolve “jury confusion,” inasmuch as “trial court has discretion in responding to questions to assist the jury in performing its function”).

“Jury coercion exists when the trial court’s actions or remarks, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, displaced the independent judgment of the jurors____What conduct amounts to coercion is particularly dependent upon the facts of each case.” , *116 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

(court will not ignore fundamental error when it sees it).

547 n. 3, , 643 n. 3 (App.2007).