Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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.”).
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).