Cited by

¶13 To establish prejudice, Whipple “must show that a reasonable jury could have reached a different result had the jury been properly instructed.” ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (cleaned up).

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citing cases).

Relevant here, to prove prejudice, Arias must show that a reasonable jury “could have reached a different result.” ().

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citing cases).

To prove prejudice, Rodriguez must show that a reasonable, properly instructed jury “could have reached a different result.”

Accordingly, as applicable here, Davis ‘bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”’ ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citations omitted).

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citing cases).

“Accordingly, [defendant] ‘bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”’” ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citations omitted).

Snow “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citations omitted).

Villegas “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

“To prove prejudice, [Smith] must show that a reasonable, properly instructed jury ‘could have reached a different result.’” ¶ 13 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 15 (App. 2013)).

Hines therefore “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

As a result, Norman “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶ 15 (App. 2013) (explaining trial evidence is considered when assessing jury instructions).

Accordingly, Hernandez “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).

Accordingly, Hardin “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citations and quotations omitted).

he assigned trial judge’s participation was a mere “technical violation of a prophylactic rule” and, therefore, “not the rare case that involves fundamental error.” To meet his burden at this stage, Mendoza must show the error “was fundamental in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, recognizing that ‘the same error may be fundamental in one case but not in another.’” ¶ 13 (App. 2013) ().

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2

Roque, 213 Ariz. at 205 ¶21; Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶ 19; Medrano, 173 Ariz. at 399; ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶ 11 (2013) (noting that, when no timely objection is made, “the review on appeal is for fundamental error,” meaning the defendant “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”) (citations and internal punctuation omitted).

“Accordingly, [Sotelo-Nava] bears 3 STATE v. SOTELO-NAVA Decision of the Court the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, to prove prejudice, Brenda “must show that a reasonable [fact-finder] could have reached a different result.” ¶ 13 (App. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) ( ¶ 15 (App. 2013)).

-93, ¶ 8-9 (App. 2013) (reversing conviction for "reasonable apprehension" aggravated assault, a crime requiring proof of intentional conduct, because court instructed jury on knowing and reckless culpable mental states).

¶¶ 11, 13, (citations omitted).