Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martin, 235 P.3d 1045.

33 citing documents.

State v. Groves Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Groves Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
4 STATE v. GROVES Decision of the Court “Speculative prejudice is insufficient under fundamental error review.” ¶ 15 (App. 2010); ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (finding that defendant had not met his burden of establishing prejudice under fundamental error review in light of overwhelming evidence).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Because “[s]peculative prejudice is insufficient under fundamental error review[,]” ¶ 15 (App. 2010), his claim fails.
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 15 (App. 2010) (“Speculative prejudice is insufficient under fundamental error review.”).
State v. Mendez-Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mendez-Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (“To warrant reversal under fundamental error review .
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Even if the court did err, Earl fails to establish prejudice because he offers only a speculative, conclusory assertion that the jury “could have reached a different verdict.” ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (“Speculative prejudice is insufficient under fundamental error review.”).
State v. Copple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Copple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
As a result, not only is Copple’s prejudice argument waived, ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (failure to develop an argument results in waiver), but his argument fails because prejudice cannot be shown by speculation, ¶ 15 (App. 2010).
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 16 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2003)).
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
could have reached a different [verdict].” See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 569 ¶ 27 (emphasis added); ¶¶ 14–15 (App. 2010) (applying this standard in finding that even if it was 10 State v. Escalante Opinion of the Court fundamental error to admit videotape in evidence, it did not prejudice the defendant).
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–67, ¶ 20 (App. 2010); see also United States v. Nettles, 476 F.3d 508, 517–18 (7th Cir. 2007) (a confidential informant is not considered a witness when his recorded statements merely provide context to a defendant’s admissions); ¶ 35 (2008) (an interviewer’s videotaped stateme
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
As for prejudice, the defendant must show that, “absent error, a reasonable jury could have reached a different result.” ¶ 14
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Boutsisavanh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Boutsisavanh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Speculative prejudice is insufficient under fundamental error review.” ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Establishing prejudice requires a showing that “absent error, a reasonable jury could have reached a different result.”
State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011