Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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
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