Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

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).
State v. Sumpter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sumpter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
intertwined” with “[t]he facts learned from debriefings and free talks.” ¶31 Absent an objection, we review a trial court’s admission of expert testimony for fundamental error, Carlson, 237 Ariz. at 390 ¶ 23, 351 P.3d at 1088, which requires that, in addition to finding error of that magnitude, the court must find that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result, ¶ 20
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Simply put, Simmons’s convictions, and corresponding sentences, for violating § 13-3417(A) cannot stand because his conduct, as presented at trial, was not proscribed by the statute.9 ¶¶ 19-20, Stroud, n.2, 103 P.3d at 914 n.2.
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hudson 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. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19 (2005); -35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008).
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 8, (harmless error review used when objections are raised at trial to a prosecutor’s arguments or comments) ( ¶ 18, (“Reviewing courts consider alleged trial error under the harmless error standard when a defendant objects at trial and thereby preserves an issue for appeal.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by