Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

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
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 19-20 , , (“‘Opposing counsel must timely object to any erroneous or improper statements made during closing argument or waive his right to the objection, except for fundamental error.’ ”)
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Because he raised no objection to the proceeding below, to be entitled to appellate relief Forte must demonstrate that the alleged error was both fundamental and prejudicial, ¶¶ 19-20 , -08 (2005), or that the alleged error was structural, in which ease prejudice is presumed.
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
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, 6 Kiles did not testify at the first trial.
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19