Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶25 We review constitutional claims de novo, ¶ 27, but because Patron raises this claim for the first time on appeal, we review for fundamental error only, ¶ 19
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 20, (“Finding no error in the court’s evidentiary ruling, we need not address whether any alleged error was fundamental and 6 STATE v. BLACK Decision of the Court prejudicial.”); ¶ 23, (similar).
ades/anderson v. Ayiyi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
ades/anderson v. Ayiyi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cahill 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, (citation omitted).
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19 (2005) (quotation omitted).
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lombardo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To prevail under this standard of review, the onus rests with Defendant to “establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20 (2005).
State v. Lombardo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19 (2005) (failure to object to alleged trial error results in fundamental error review).
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To prevail on fundamental error review, a defendant “must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20 (2005).
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Murrieta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Murrieta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Under these circumstances, we 2 ¶ 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. Sanora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 20, (“Finding no error in the court’s evidentiary ruling, we need not address whether any alleged error was fundamental and prejudicial.”); ¶ 23, (defendant “must first prove error” under fundamental error review).
State v. Swier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To prevail under fundamental error, an appellant must establish “both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“To establish fundamental error, [a defendant] must show that the error complained of goes to the foundation of his case, takes away a right that is essential to his defense, and is of such magnitude that he could not have received a fair trial.” ¶ 24
State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015