Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Manweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Manweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-68, ¶ 19-20, -08 (2005).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-68, ¶¶ 19-20, -08 (2005).
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–68 ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005).
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18 (App. 2009) ( ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)).
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Togstad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 19–20 (2005) (failing to object at the trial level limits appellate review to fundamental, prejudicial error).
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Togstad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Couture Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Couture Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Hamilton, 177 Ariz. at 408, 868 P.2d at 991
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 20 (2005) (reversal requires a defendant to show both fundamental error and resulting prejudice).
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parrinello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parrinello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7, (stating that “[b]ecause [there was] no claim of prosecutorial misconduct below, we review for fundamental error.”); ¶ 19
State v. Estes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Estes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros 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 (2005) ().
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The oversight, however, did not prejudice Marshall, ¶ 20 (2005), because the court had told him of the two sentencing ranges during the final trial management conference.
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by