Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Newell, 212 Ariz. at 398, ¶¶ 33–35; Canez, 202 Ariz. at 150–52, ¶¶ 50–57; ¶ 19 (2005) (“burden of persuasion” shifts to a defendant in fundamental-error review to discourage him “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 original) (quot
State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 19 (2005); ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (citing cases).
State v. Grimes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grimes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
As stated above, “[h]armless 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. Arellano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arellano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 21 (2018); ¶ 20 (2005).
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 1 (App. 2008) (-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005), ).
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
¶ 21 (2018); ¶ 21 (2009); –68 ¶¶ 19–20 (2005).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 28 (2010) (-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review).
State v. Spriggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Spriggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 20 (2005) (noting that fundamental error requires a defendant to prove not only that an error was fundamental but that the error caused him prejudice).
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 19 (2005); see also State v. Vargas–Burgos, (legality of sentence may be properly appealed despite failure to object in trial court).
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at 142, ¶ 21 (citations omitted) ( ¶ 26 (2005)).
State v. Lester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019