Cited by

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].”).

§ 13-402.” ¶ 20 (2005) (“[A] defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.”).

We review that order for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Buccheri–Bianca, ¶ 16 (App. 2013); and because Johnson’s counsel objected to the amendment, we review for harmless error, ¶ 18 (2005).