Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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
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