Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Henderson, 115 P.3d 601.

1723 citing documents.

State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
However, because Appellant did not object to the detective’s testimony, our standard of review is fundamental error, which requires Appellant to “show that the error complained of goes to the foundation of his case, takes away a right that is essential to his defense, and is of such magnitude that he could not have received a fair trial.” ¶ 24 (2005) (citation omitted).
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Henderson , , ¶ 18
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-68, ¶¶ 18-20 (2005) (explaining that when an issue is preserved, the appellate court reviews for harmless error — requiring the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no effect on the verdict or sentence — and when an issue is not preserved, the appellate court reviews for fundamental error —
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Structural errors are those that “affect the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end, and thus taint the framework within which the trial proceeds.” ¶ 12 (2005) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted).
State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 19 (2005); STATE v. MULLET Decision of the Court ¶25 Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 609(a), a party may attack a witness’s character for truthfulness with pr
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 22 (2005); (holding that an objection on one ground does not preserve an issue on another ground).
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
To prevail on fundamental error review, Berliew must “establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in [her] case caused [her] prejudice.” ¶ 20 (2005).
State v. McMorris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McMorris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Calderon-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Calderon-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶¶ 19-20 (2005) (explaining fundamental error is error that both goes to the foundation of the case and prejudices the defendant).
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶¶ 19-20 (2005) (explaining that fundamental error is error that both goes to the foundation of the case and prejudices the defendant).
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fundamental error is “error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” ¶ 19 (2005) (citation omitted).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 19 (2005); (fundamental error review when defendant failed to challenge aggravating factor at sentencing).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Henderson , , ¶ 18
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by