Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

State v. Venable Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Shakir Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Shakir Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sample Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sample Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
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).
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at 142 ¶ 21 ( ¶ 26 (2005)).
State of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murray 482 P.3d 1038 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murray 482 P.3d 1038 Ariz. 2021
at 144 ¶ 29 ( ¶ 27 (2005)) (internal quotation marks 6 STATE V. MURRAY Opinion of the Court omitted).
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Rector v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Rector v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶24 The court’s error was harmless, however, because the state has shown “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gonzales tested positive for methamphetamine and metabolites of heroin and alprazolam, the same three drugs discovered in backpack and referred to in the drug sales ledger.
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶17 “[E]rrors are considered structural rather than trial errors when they affect the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end, and thus taint the framework within which the trial proceeds.” ¶ 12 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Harmless error review 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).
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Platero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Platero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
for Neurology & Psychiatry, and do not approve of counsel failing to raise or fully litigate an issue before the superior court in the hope that, if they fail to win their case on its merits, they have an “ace in the hole” to rely on as a means of securing reversal on appeal, ¶ 19 (2005) (disapproving of a defendant “taking his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the ‘hole card’ of a later appeal on a matter that was curable at trial, and then seeking appellate reversal” (brackets and cita
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 18 (2005) ("Harmless error review 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.").
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 19 (2005); ¶ 6 (App. 2016).
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020