Cited by

466 U.S. 648, 659–60 (1984); ¶ 10 (2009) (when structural error exists, prejudice is presumed and reversal is required even absent objection), –41, ¶¶ 15–16 (2018).

¶9 “If an appellate court finds structural error, reversal is mandated regardless of whether an objection is made below or prejudice is found.” ¶¶ 15-16 (2018).

“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, however, a defendant on appeal must first establish that some error occurred.” ¶ 11 (2010); ¶ 21 (2018) (“[T]he first step in fundamental error review is determining whether trial error exists.”); –85, ¶ 10 (2009) (discussing structural error review) (abrogated on other grounds by Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 140–41, ¶¶ 15–16).

Because Riley failed to object on Simmons grounds during his trial, “our review [is limited] to fundamental error.” ¶¶ 66–68 (2018) (–85 ¶¶ 9–12 (2009), abrogated on other grounds by Escalante, ); see also Hargrave, 225 Ariz. at 14 ¶¶ 50– 51.

¶ 11 (2009), ¶¶ 15-16 (2018).

¶ 12 (2009) -41 ¶ 16 (2018); ¶ 23 (1999).

¶ 40 (2017) (conjunctive); ¶ 12 (2016) (same); ¶ 12 (2009) (same), ¶ 58 (2014) (disjunctive); ¶ 16 (2014) (same); ¶ 13 (2010) (same); ¶ 21 (2009) (same).

¶ 12 (2009) (internal quotation omitted).

State v. Valverde , , 584-85 ¶¶ 9-12, , 235-36 (2009).

¶ 16 (2009) (statements regarding erroneous jury instruction not necessarily prejudicial).

consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”); ¶ 16 (2009) (“In assessing the impact of an erroneous instruction, we also consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”).

¶ 11 (2009) (“A reviewing court will affirm a conviction despite the error if it is harmless, that is, if the state, in light of all the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. at 286 ¶ 126; ¶ 11 (2009) (“A reviewing court will affirm a conviction despite the error if it is harmless, that is, if the state, in light of all of the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Error is harmless if the State, “in light of all of the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 11 (2009) (citations omitted).

-88, ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 16 (2009) (flight instruction did not contribute to or affect the verdict)).

if the state, in light of all of the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 11 (2009) (internal quotation omitted).

-85, ¶ 10, -36 (2009) (stating that structural error “deprive[s] defendants of basic protections” and, if an appellate court finds such error, “reversal is mandated regardless of whether an objection is made below”).

is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”

¶ 10, (“If an appellate court finds structural error, reversal is mandated regardless of whether an objection is made below or prejudice is found.

¶ 16 (2009) (“In assessing the impact of an erroneous instruction, we also consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”); ¶ 40 (2008) (explaining that the child molestation allegation that was improperly admitted “was not a passing reference, but rather a repeated theme

Structural errors “deprive defendants of basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” Neder v. United States, 571 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1999) (citation and quotations omitted); ¶ 10 (2009); ¶ 45 (2003).