Cited by

Because Ruedas did not raise this issue at trial, he “must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20 (2005); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

¶12 Even if the superior court’s refusal to give a Willits instruction were erroneous, reversal would not be warranted because the State has established “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict[s].” ¶ 18 (2005).

(“Failure to argue a claim usually 8 STATE v. TERAN Opinion of the Court constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.”); ¶ 18 (2005) (the State bears the burden to show an error was harmless).

Miles bears the burden of establishing “both that fundamental error occurred and that the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 22 (2005).

(error harmless if state proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”); see also Thompson, (refusing to overturn conviction and sentence where beyond reasonable doubt that flawed jury instruction did not affect verdict).

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.”).