Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Cotham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 21.3(c); –68 ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
¶ 18, (“Harmless error review places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.”).
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–68, ¶¶ 19–20, –08 (2005).
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia-Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia-Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-68, ¶¶ 20-22, -08 (2005).
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 19, (stating fundamental error review applies when defendant fails to object to alleged trial error); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-68, ¶¶ 20-22, -08 (2005) (defendant bears burden of establishing both fundamental error occurrence and resulting prejudice).
State v. Recchia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Recchia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 19-20, see also McDonald, 117 Ariz. at 161, 571 2 Brandon Chapple and Isiah Buck did not appeal their convictions or sentences.
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Jose Raul Juarez-Orci 342 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jose Raul Juarez-Orci 342 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
P. 21.3(c); ¶¶ 19–20, (untimely objection first raised in motion for new trial does not preserve issue for appeal).
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
6 Theft is not always “lesser” than organized retail theft, because theft of more than $3,000 in property or services can be a class four felony, and $25,000 or more is a class three felony; organized retail theft is a class four felony reg
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“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.” ¶ 20
State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–68, ¶¶ 11–22, –08 (2005).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 19, (stating fundamental error review “applies when a defendant fails to object to alleged trial error”).
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014