Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-69, ¶¶ 19-26, -09 (2005).
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
To demonstrate that an 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.” ¶ 18 (2005).
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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, (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Summer Lynn Leon 381 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Summer Lynn Leon 381 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶ 13; ¶¶ 19-20, (fundamental error review applies to constitutional claims first raised on appeal).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶6 “To prevail under th[e] standard of review [for fundamental error], a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
In other words, 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, (internal quotation marks omitted) ( ¶ 22, ).
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hearn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by