Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 19 , -14 , -18 (1989) ("Defendant cannot take his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the 'hole card’ of a later appeal on an evidentiary matter that was curable at trial, and then seek appellate reversal from an unfavorable verdi
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Valverde 204 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Valverde 204 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
The State also argues that because Valverde was not prejudiced by the omission, , did not occur.
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See State v. Henderson, 210, 561, 567, ¶ 19, , (fundamental error may be raised for the first time on appeal).
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 19-20 , , , (arguments raised for first time in reply brief waived).
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶8 By failing to assert any constitutional claim below or object on constitutional grounds to the trial court’s failure to make specific findings, Williams “forfeit[ed] the right to obtain appellate relief unless [he] prove[s] that fundamental error occurred.” n.2, n.2 (2005); (“Fundamental error review .
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
V ¶21 For Smith to prevail on his claim, however, -68, ¶¶ 19-21, -08 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
was guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter.” Because Garcia failed to object at trial, we review the instructions for fundamental error only, that is, for “‘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.’”
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(limited appellate relief designed to prevent parties from using curable trial error as “hole card” on appeal)
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶ 18
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
¶ 19, (“Fundamental error review .