Cited by

¶ 18 (2005) (Courts review trial error under the harmless-error standard when the objection is preserved.).

DISCUSSION ¶24 When a defendant objects at trial, the court conducts a harmless error review in which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, ( ¶ 18 (2005)).

See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27 ("No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done."); ¶ 20 (2005) ("To prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.").

¶15 When a defendant objects at trial, the court conducts a harmless error review in which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, ( ¶ 18 (2005)).

¶13 When a defendant objects at trial, the court conducts a harmless error review in which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, ( ¶ 18 (2005)).

When a defendant objects at trial, the court conducts a harmless error review in which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, ( ¶ 18 (2005)).

armless error review in 3 STATE v. BETRUE Decision of the Court which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, ( ¶ 18 (2005)).

Because Armendaris raised this issue before the superior court, the court conducts a harmless error review in which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, ( ¶ 18 (2005)).

- 69, ¶¶ 19-26 (2005); ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).

–69, ¶¶ 19–26 (2005); ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).

¶ 12 (2018); ¶ 20 (2005).

–69, ¶¶ 19–26 (2005); ¶ 30 (App. 1999).

¶90 Of course, such instructional error may be harmless if, beyond a reasonable doubt, “the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 18 (2005).

¶ 19 (2005) (stating that fundamental error review should not encourage a defendant to “tak[e] his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the hole card of a later appeal on a matter that was curable at trial, and then seek[] appellate reversal”) (cleaned up).

“Harmless error review places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005).