Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 12, ¶¶ 19-20, Alvarez, 213 Ariz. at 469, ¶ 7, 143 P.3d at 670.
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To demonstrate an objected-to error was harmless, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the error in admitting the evidence “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Id.; ¶¶ 20-26, -50 (2014) (conducting harmless error review despite state’s failure to argue error was harmless in brief).
State v. Rustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera 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, (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–68, ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
14 STATE v. VASSELL Opinion of the Court standard); n.4, n.4 (App. 2004) (“plain error” is “the closest analogue to our doctrine of fundamental error”), vacated in part on other grounds, P.3d 601 (2005).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Structural errors “are those which ‘deprive defendants of basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for guilt or innocence.’”
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State v. Leeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Error is fundamental when it affects the foundation of the case, deprives the defendant of a right essential to his defense, or is an “error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” ¶ 19, ( ).
State v. Leeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015