Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19, (holding that objection on grounds of lack of foundation and speculation did not preserve objection that admission of evidence violated confrontation right).
State v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ludwig 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 quotation marks and citation omitted).
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Because Criswell did not object to either of these alleged improprieties at trial, we review for fundamental error, ¶ 19, and find none.
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cherlle S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cherlle S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
As applicable here, an error is harmless when the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in admitting the evidence “did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18, ( ).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–68, ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005).
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19 (2005); -09 (App. 1993) (holding that an objection to evidence on one ground fails to preserve other issues on appeal).
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-68, ¶¶ 19-20, -08 (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.”).
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montelongo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montelongo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 21.3(c); –68 ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cardona Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cardona Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-69, ¶¶ 19-26, -09 (2005); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
This court must therefore review his argument under a fundamental error standard, with Fingi bearing “the burden of establishing both that fundamental error occurred and that the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 22
State v. Cortez 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, ( ).
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–68, ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005); ¶ 11
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-68, ¶¶ 20-22, -08 (2005).
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–68, ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005).
State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19, (“[A]n objection to the admission of evidence on one ground will not preserve issues relating to the admission of that evidence on other grounds.”).
State v. Cotham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015