Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

State v. Lester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 20 (2005) (explaining error is not reversible unless prejudice is shown).
State v. Vega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Vega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rondan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rondan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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).
State v. Byers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Byers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2010); ¶¶ 19-20 (2005).
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 19-20 (2005) (explaining fundamental error is error that both goes to the foundation of the case and prejudices the defendant).
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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).
State v. Aston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review the admission of the first two statements for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 58 (2012), but we review admission of the third statement for fundamental error because Aston never objected at trial, ¶ 20 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
¶ 19 (2005); ¶¶ 66–68 (2018).
State v. Runnels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Runnels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 18-19 (2005) (no harmless or fundamental error without proof of trial error).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 12 (2018) ( ¶ 20 (2005)).
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 133, ¶ 61; -69, ¶¶ 19-26 (2005).
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rose 441 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Rose 441 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Henderson , , ¶¶ 18-19, , 607 (App. 2005).
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at 142, ¶ 21 ( ¶ 26 (2005)).
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019