Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Escalante 396 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶ 23, -68, ¶¶ 19-26, -08 (2005) (holding that a defendant forfeits review of all but fundamental, prejudicial error by failing to object at trial).
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Even were we to agree with Appellant’s characterization of the testimony—which we do not— Appellant did not object at trial and does not further explain or develop his argument on appeal; thus, he has waived it absent fundamental, prejudicial error, -68, ¶¶ 19-26, -08 (2005), which has not been shown here.
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Battle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Battle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) (citation omitted).
State v. Mente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Paredes- Solano, 223 Ariz. at 288, ¶ 8; ¶ 19 (2005).
State v. Leyva-Nafarrate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cunningham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Leyva-Nafarrate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cunningham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 21.3(c); ¶¶ 19–20 (2005).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, ¶ 19 (2005) (citing Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572).
State v. Azar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) (fundamental error review applies when a defendant fails to object to alleged trial error).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) (“Fundamental error review .
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) (citation omitted).
State v. Jorgensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jorgensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2005) (citations and quotations omitted).
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-68, ¶¶ 19-20, -08 (2005).
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 13 (App. 2014) ("If a defendant fails to object on the basis of a trial judge's bias below by filing a motion and affidavit pursuant to Rule 10.1, he forfeits review for all but fundamental, prejudicial error."); ¶ 19 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State v. Clow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Clow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 20, (under fundamental error review, error must be of a magnitude that the defendant could not receive have received a fair trial) (citation omitted).
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017