Cited by

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

1723 citing documents.

State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
Alternatively, Velazquez contends that we should find fundamental error, which affords relief only if he “establish[es] both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 17 , (distinguishing between trial error and structural error); ¶ 45 , (same).
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
¶¶ 19-20, (quotation marks omitted).
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
Morris bears the burden of persuasion and must “establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 19 , (holding failure to object at trial waives issue absent fundamental error).
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(defendant who fails to object at trial forfeits right to obtain appellate relief except in those “rare cases” involving fundamental error).
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Our supreme court has explained that “defendants who fail to object to an error below forfeit the right to obtain appellate relief unless they prove that fundamental error occurred.” n. 2, ¶ 4 , , 620 n. 2, (2005); ¶ 19 , (fundamental error review “applies when a defendant fails to object to alleged trial error”).
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Fundamental error is “‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 23-26, -09 (2005).
In Re Natalie Z. 153 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Re Natalie Z. 153 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. McIntosh 146 P.3d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. McIntosh 146 P.3d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 19 , , (holding that the State did not have the burden to prove voluntariness of statement, absent filing of proeedurally proper suppression motion).
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
By failing to object below on Sixth Amendment grounds, Alvarez “forfeit[ed] the right to obtain appellate relief unless [he] prove[s] that fundamental error occurred.” n. 2 , , 620 n. 2 (2005); , (“Fundamental error review ...
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
¶ 19, (fundamental error standard applies if no objection made at trial).
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
052129.” 7 Henderson, ¶¶ 19, 20, n.2, n.2 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
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.” State v. - 15 - Henderson, ¶ 19, ( ).