Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Orona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) ("[W]e place the burden of persuasion in fundamental error review on the defendant.").
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Ms2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Ms2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 22 (2005); (holding that an objection on one ground does not preserve an issue on another ground).
State v. Toddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Toddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 22; (objection on one ground does not preserve objection on another ground).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 20 (2005); ¶ 20 (2007) (reviewing a defendant’s challenges to the voir dire process, raised for the first time on appeal, for fundamental error).
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Spriggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Spriggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) (citation omitted).
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Billups Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Billups Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-65, ¶ 8, -05 (2005) (explaining that fundamental error review applies where no objection is made at trial).
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶¶ 18-19, (appellate court reviews for harmless error when defendant objects at trial; appellate court reviews for fundamental error when defendant fails to object) (citations omitted).
State v. Bustillos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Aschenbrenner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bustillos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Aschenbrenner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.2, ¶ 10, n.2 (2005) (recognizing that a reviewing court generally does not address moot issues); (Colo.
State v. Escalante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Escalante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶8 In his supplemental briefs, Escalante identifies two issues that we review for fundamental error only.1 ¶ 19 (2005) (fundamental error review applies when a defendant fails to object to the alleged error in the trial court).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 39 (2008) (“The State has the burden of convincing us that any error was harmless.”); ¶ 18 (2005) (noting harmless error analysis, applicable where a timely objection was improperly overruled, “places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”).
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) (citations and quotations omitted).
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-68, ¶ 20 (2005) (citations omitted).
State v. Escalante 396 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017