Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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
In Re Mh2010-002637 263 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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. Kemper 258 P.3d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Kemper 258 P.3d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶ 19
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
Because Delahanty did not object below, he must show “both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010