Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James A. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James A. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶¶ 19-20 , (failure to object to alleged error in trial court results in forfeiture of review for all but fundamental error).
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bob H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic SEC. 237 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bob H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic SEC. 237 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
-68 ¶¶ 19-20, -08 (2005).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
- 6 - received a fair trial.” ¶ 19, ( ).
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶¶ 19-20
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, however, a defendant on appeal must first establish that some error occurred.3 ¶ 23, (“To obtain relief under the fundamental error standard of review, [a defendant] must first prove error.”).
State v. GARCIA-NAVARRO 226 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. GARCIA-NAVARRO 226 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(this court reviews only for fundamental error when defendant fails to object to alleged error below).
State v. Maldonado 223 P.3d 653 Ariz. 2010
State v. Maldonado 223 P.3d 653 Ariz. 2010
¶ 19, cf. Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631 (rejecting view that defects in an indictment deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction and instead applying plain error review when issue was not raised below).
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 23 , (fundamental error); , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (invited error).
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
571 n. 6, ¶ 39, , 611 n. 6 (2005) ("In cases where there is any doubt as to whether an error not addressed in the defendant’s brief is prejudicial, an appellate court raising the issue sua sponte should ask for supplemental briefing^]”).
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
Structural 10 error arises in a very limited set of circumstances — those in which “defendants [are deprived] of basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for [determination of] guilt or innocence.” ¶ 12, (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1999)); accord Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 584-85 ¶ 10, 208 P.3d at 235-36.
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 19-20, (objection not preserved at trial forfeited on appeal absent fundamental, prejudicial error).
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Fundamental error is “error going to the foundation of a case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defen *67 dant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” ¶ 19 , ( , ).
State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009