Cited by

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).

¶ 21 (2018); ¶ 20 (2005).

¶ 1 (App. 2008) (-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005), ).

¶ 21 (2018); ¶ 21 (2009); –68 ¶¶ 19–20 (2005).

¶ 28 (2010) (-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review).

¶ 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).

¶ 19 (2005); see also State v. Vargas–Burgos, (legality of sentence may be properly appealed despite failure to object in trial court).

at 142, ¶ 21 (citations omitted) ( ¶ 26 (2005)).

¶ 20 (2005) (explaining error is not reversible unless prejudice is shown).

2 STATE v. WILLIAMS Decision of the Court of review, a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20 (2005) (citations omitted).

Error is harmless if the State demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict," ¶ 18 (2005), and when excluded evidence is merely cumulative to admitted evidence

¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2010); ¶¶ 19-20 (2005).

De Groote has failed to show, and the record does not support, a different sentencing result could reasonably have been reached, Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 142, 144, ¶¶ 21, 29–30, or that the court would not have imposed the same sentence in any event, ¶ 26 (2005).

¶¶ 19-20 (2005) (explaining fundamental error is error that both goes to the foundation of the case and prejudices the defendant).

An error is harmless if the State demonstrates “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 18 (2005); –66, ¶ 18 (2003) (stating harmless error analysis is applied to erroneous jury instructions).