Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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.”).
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