Cited by

at 140 ¶ 13 ( ¶¶ 19–20 (2005)).

¶53 Therefore, the Majority’s holding that the erroneous instructions—concerning a defense Hippensteel never relied upon—deprived him of a “right essential to [the] defense” is unsupported by the record before us. See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 140 ¶ 13 ( ¶ 19 (2005)).

“Harmless error review places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005).

“Harmless error review places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005).

P. 21.3(b); ¶¶ 19–20 (2005); ¶ 21 (2018).

United States v. Huang, 960 F.2d 1128, 1135 (2d Cir. 1992) (discussing “plain error”); ¶ 19 (2005) (we review for fundamental error when the defendant fails to object to the alleged error at trial); ¶ 14 (App. 2021) (citing the federal plain error doctrine because it is analogous to Arizona’s fundamental error doctrine).

17, 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (under fundamental error review, defendant must “affirmatively prove prejudice and may not rely upon speculation to carry his burden”), ¶ 18 (2005) (“Harmless error review places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.”).

¶ 18 (2005) (“Harmless error review places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.”).

¶ 18 (2005); Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 294 (2017).

[Rodriguez was] reacting kind of violently” and saying “stuff the jury shouldn’t hear.” The state also noted 2The state contends Rodriguez “concede[d]” that his failure to “move to suppress his confession or request a voluntariness hearing below” means his claims should be “reviewed only for fundamental, prejudicial error.”