Cited by

¶ 12 (2018); ¶ 20 (2005).

–69, ¶¶ 19–26 (2005); ¶ 30 (App. 1999).

¶90 Of course, such instructional error may be harmless if, beyond a reasonable doubt, “the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 18 (2005).

¶ 19 (2005) (stating that fundamental error review should not encourage a defendant to “tak[e] his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the hole card of a later appeal on a matter that was curable at trial, and then seek[] appellate reversal”) (cleaned up).

“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.” ¶ 18 (2005).

could have reached a different [result].’”) ( ¶ 27 (2005)); Trujillo, 227 Ariz. at 318, ¶ 16 (noting that defendant must show that “the court could have reasonably imposed a lighter sentence” had it not considered defendant’s lack of remorse) (emphasis added).

For objected-to trial error, we conduct harmless error review, which “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.” ¶ 18 (2005).

(preserved error reviewed for harmlessness)

P. 21.3(c); ¶¶ 19-20 (2005).

“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.” (“harmless error standard” appropriate “when a defendant objects at trial and thereby preserves an issue for appeal”).

This standard of 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.” (once defendant has shown error, burden shifts to state to prove error harmless); (state has burden of convincing appellate court that “guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattrib

could have reached a different [verdict].” 5 STATE v. FERRARA Decision of the Court Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144, ¶ 29 ( ¶ 27 (2005)); ¶ 13 (App. 2013) (“[A defendant] must affirmatively ‘prove prejudice’ and may not rely upon ‘speculation’ to carry his burden [of establishing reversible fundamental error].”).