Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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
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. Lombardo 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. 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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by