Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

  • 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
  • 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