Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State v. Tatlow 290 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Tatlow 290 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
“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. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
10 ¶22 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.’”
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
The court denied the motion, finding the contents of the bag “pretty innocuous.” ¶14 Because Martinez did not object before the exhibit was admitted into evidence, we review for fundamental error.3 ¶ 19, see Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
4 Because Martinez did not object to this testimony at trial, “our review is limited to fundamental error.” ¶ 38 , ( ¶ 19 , ).
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
¶¶ 23-24, 569 ¶ 26, 609 (2005).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 16 Fundamental error is error that goes “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 of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Gonzalez 278 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Gonzalez 278 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶ 19
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
3 ¶¶ 19-20 , (failure to object to alleged error in trial court results in forfeiture of review for all but fundamental error).
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Jerrold Dean Broman 265 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Jerrold Dean Broman 265 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Kemper 271 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Kemper 271 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“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.”
In Re Mh2010-002637 263 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by