Cited by

(we “should not reverse a case on the ground of fundamental error unless [our] analysis of the entire record permits [us] to set forth reasons clearly demonstrating that the case falls within our definition of fundamental error.”).

And “an Arizona appellate court should not reverse a case on the ground of fundamental error unless its analysis of the entire record permits it to set forth reasons clearly demonstrating that the case falls within our definition of fundamental error.” (emphasis added).

( 9 STATE V. ROMERO Opinion of the Court (1991)).

“‘For all we know, defendant might have objected had the trial court done what the appeals court now says it was required to do’ (sua sponte provide a justification instruction).” Brown, 556 P.3d at 782 ¶ 28 ().

¶ 21 (App. 2005); ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

¶ 21 (App. 2005); ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

(affirming preclusion of proffered evidence and refusing to consider new theory of admissibility that was “advanced for the first time on appeal”); (“Our adversarial system properly and necessarily precludes injection of new issues on 4 STATE v. CARDOZA Decision of the Court appeal.”).

If a party does not make a proper objection, appellate review may be limited.”); (“Absent a finding of fundamental error, failure to raise an issue at trial, including failure to request a jury instruction, waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.”); (“[A] trial judge’s failure to give an instruction sua sponte provides grounds for revers

The briefs on appeal address two Arizona Supreme Court directives on the issue

If a party does not make a proper objection, appellate review may be limited”); (“[A] trial judge’s failure to give an instruction sua sponte provides grounds for reversal only if such failure is fundamental error.”).

That is, “the error must be clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.”

(holding that the failure to raise an objection in the superior court waives all but fundamental error review).

(noting the failure to raise an issue at trial waives all but fundamental error).

(“The United States Supreme Court has held that even the failure to give a presumption of innocence instruction is not per se fundamental error[.]”) –90 (1984) (finding fundamental error when the superior court gave jury instructions improperly shifting the burden of p

Fundamental error “must be clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.”

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

at 567 ¶¶ 19–20 (emphasis added) ( ( (holding that fundamental error is that which is “clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial”))).

“Fundamental error is error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” (quotation omitted); (“To qualify as ‘fundamental error,’ .

(describing fundamental error as “error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial”) ( ), nor prejudicial, because Belvin had the opportunity to cross-examine the case agent regarding the different caliber of the bullets.

STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court 154 (1991).

¶ 19, (“Absent a finding of fundamental error, failure to raise an issue at trial .