Cited by

No. MH 2008- 002659, (disapproving “defendant from ‘tak[ing] his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the ‘hole card’ of a later appeal on [a] matter that was curable at trial, and then seek[ing] appellate reversal” (alterations in Henderson) (-14 (1989))).

An error is considered structural if it impacts the entire “trial from beginning to end,” tainting “the framework within which the trial proceeds.” ¶ 12 (2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

¶ 18 (2005) (describing the harmless error standard).

Where Woods objected to the challenged testimony, we review its admission for harmless error, which “places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005).

See, ¶ 21 (2018) (explaining “the first step in fundamental error review is determining whether trial error exists”); ¶ 18 (2005) (explaining when a party properly objects, harmless-error review preserves the challenged issue for 3 TAMMY R. v. LANCE B., A.R.

P. 21.3(b); ¶ 19 (2005) (explaining that courts “discourage a defendant from tak[ing] his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the ‘hole card’ of a later appeal on [a] matter that was curable at trial, and then seek[ing] appellate reversal’”) (quotation omitted).

¶ 18 (2005) (“Reviewing courts consider alleged trial error under the harmless error standard when a defendant objects at trial and thereby preserves an issue for appeal.”).

Since Meza raised the issue at trial, we review for harmless error, and the State bears the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005).

at 142 ¶ 21 ( ¶ 26 (2005)).

at 144 ¶ 29 ( ¶ 27 (2005)) (internal quotation marks 6 STATE V. MURRAY Opinion of the Court omitted).