Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(where defendant objected below, burden is on state to prove harmless error).
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
5 STATE v. HARRINGTON Decision of the Court error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” ¶ 19 (2005) (citation omitted).
State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-68, ¶¶ 19-21 , -08 (2005).
State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 19–20 (2005); ¶ 120 (2004) (evidentiary 4 STATE v. HOOVER Decision of the Court objection on one ground preserves the issue only as to the ground actually raised; other grounds a
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19, (failure to object to alleged trial error results in fundamental error review).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Krznarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Krznarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19, (failure to object to alleged trial error results in fundamental error review).
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nelson 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. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Loyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19 (2005) (failure to object to alleged trial error results in fundamental error review).
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Loyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Petersen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Petersen 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. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 19-20, (waiver principle applies to both constitutional and non-constitutional issues) (citations omitted).