Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-68, ¶¶ 19-20, -08 (2005); see also State v. Cañez, ¶ 70, (“[W]e will review for fundamental error even absent a pretrial motion to suppress.”), supplemented by P.3d 932 (2003), and abrogated on other grounds by State v. Valenzuela, 239
State v. Hearn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 13 (App. 2016) ( ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)).
State of Arizona v. Brian K. Hancock 379 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Brian K. Hancock 379 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Valencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19, (“Absent a finding of fundamental error, failure to raise an issue at trial .
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Demirus Ananda Koepke 377 P.3d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Demirus Ananda Koepke 377 P.3d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
1 1 It is not entirely clear from Koepke’s briefs whether her argument is one of complete denial of counsel, a structural error, & n.2, -36 & n.2 (2009), or rather an argument that counsel’s failure to strictly comply with Rule 38(d) constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error, ¶¶ 19-20, -08 3 & n.2, -36 & n.2 (2009); see also United
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
–13 ¶¶ 28–30, –56 (2003); ¶ 19
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18 (2005) (noting that to demonstrate that an objected-to error was harmless, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in admitting the evidence “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence”).
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19 (2005); ¶ 34 (2011).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The defense objected on multiple occasions to what it perceived to be the impugning of defense counsel through the telling of the Copperfield story; we thus “consider alleged trial error under the harmless error standard when a defendant objects at trial and thereby preserves an issue for appeal.” ¶ 18
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“To establish fundamental error, [a defendant] must 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).
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Adkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Adkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carlos O. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carlos O. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19, (defendant bears burden of establishing fundamental error).
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 20 (2005) (“To prevail under [fundamental error review], a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.”).