Cited by

(Improperly admitted hearsay evidence may be prejudicial.)

(noting that admission of unobjected to hearsay testimony warrants reversal when it is “the sole proof of an essential element of the state’s case”).

True, improperly admitted evidence may support reversal when it is the “sole proof of an essential element of the state’s case,” but a defendant does not establish prejudicial fundamental error warranting reversal merely by pointing to “conflicting evidence for the jury’s consideration.” ¶ 116 (2024) ().

Although improperly admitted hearsay evidence may be grounds for reversal if such evidence was the “sole proof of an essential element of the state’s case,” the State—as Strong acknowledges—presented other evidence of Strong’s financial troubles and debts to Luis.

¶23 Wilson’s is also misplaced.

(failing to raise an objection renders evidence admissible for all purposes).

-99 (1982); see Ariz. R. Evid.

See, e.g., Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568 ¶ 25 (“Because the sentencing procedure followed denied Henderson the right to have certain facts decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude that the procedure utilized went to the foundation of Henderson’s case.”); (finding that erroneous admission of fifty-seven allegedly forged receipts went to foundation of state’s case that defendant’s prior forgeries evidenced his guilt there); ¶ 17 (App. 2015) (“[T]he instruction at issue here potential

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McGann , , 300, , 815 (1982) ) ); State v. Weber , 372 Wis.2d 202 , 887 N.W.2d 554 , 567 (2016) (reasoning that, where a defendant "declined to submit to a law enforcement officer's lawful attempts to conduct a traffic stop," the defendant instead could have "chosen to stop on the highway, or even in his driveway"

(“[I]f hearsay evidence is admitted without objection, it becomes competent evidence admissible for all purposes.”).

6 STATE v. SUMMERS Decision of the Court ¶19 Also, “[w]hen hearsay evidence is the sole proof of an essential element of the state’s case, reversal of the conviction may be warranted.”

Comm’n, n.2, n.2 (App. 2007) (finding issue waived on appeal because party mentioned it in passing, cited no supporting legal authority, and failed to develop it further); (noting majority rule “that if hearsay evidence is admitted without objection, it becomes competent evidence admissible for all purposes”).

¶25 Ordinarily, “‘if hearsay evidence is admitted without objection, it becomes competent evidence admissible for all purposes.’”

n.1, n.1 (1982), in which our supreme court found customer statements contained in the records of a business unreliable, and thus inadmissible, hearsay.

In other words, “[a] defendant who succeeds in overturning his conviction may be retried because the reversal on appeal nullifies the original conviction and 9 The cases May cites for a contrary conclusion, P.2d 811 (1982), P.2d 1360 (App. 1989), do not clearly support his argument.

See, , Castaneda, 150 Ariz. at 389 , 724 P.2d at 8 ; -10 , -90 (1984); Girdler, 138 Ariz. at 485-86 , 675 P.2d at 1304-05 ; -01 , -16 (1982); , cert.

805; , 298 n. 1, , 813 n. 1 (1982).

State v. Corcoran (Treadaway), , , , State v. Arm