Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Krentiras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Krentiras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶11 To prevail under fundamental error review, Skinner “must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because Cravets failed to raise this issue in the trial court, our review is limited to fundamental error.1 ¶ 19
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 19-20, (“[A]n objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.”).
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-68, ¶¶ 19-26, -08 (2005).
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-69, 10 We note the prosecutor did argue during rebuttal that Appellant had brought the bat “[b]ecause he’s the aggressor.
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“[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.”); -69, ¶¶ 19-26, -09 (2005) (defining fundamental error as prejudicial error going to the foundation of the case).
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶7 Granados did not make this argument below and therefore has forfeited review for all but fundamental, prejudicial error.2
State v. Heard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Heard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Doug Clark v. Jimmie Munoz, Jr. 330 P.3d 958 Ariz. 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Doug Clark v. Jimmie Munoz, Jr. 330 P.3d 958 Ariz. 2014
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-69, ¶¶ 22-26, -09 (2005).
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Millanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Millanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014