finding of fundamental error in Arizona

2024If a party does not make a proper objection, appellate review may be limited.”); see also State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 (1991) (“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.”); State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1, 12 (1994) (“[A] trial judge’s failure to give an instruction sua sponte provides grounds for reversal only if such failure is fundamental error.”); cf. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 145, ¶¶ 36-37 (2018) (rejecting State’s argument “that when a failure

2016See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005); see also State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 , 812 P.2d 626, 627 (1991) (“Absent a finding of fundamental error, failure to raise an issue at trial . . . waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.”).

2010Birch v. State, 19 Ariz. 366, 370 , 171 P. 135, 137 (1918) (“Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant ____”); see also Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (“Before a finding of fundamental error can be made, it must be apparent that error was committed by the trial court in some aspect of the proceedings.”). ¶ 14 Applying these principles, we find this record does not show that “only eleven jurors participated in the determination of [Diaz’s] guilt.” Diaz, 221 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 1, 211 P.3d at 1

2010Birch v. State, 19 Ariz. 366, 370 , 171 P. 135, 137 (1918) (“Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant ____”); see also Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (“Before a finding of fundamental error can be made, it must be apparent that error was committed by the trial court in some aspect of the proceedings.”). ¶ 14 Applying these principles, we find this record does not show that “only eleven jurors participated in the determination of [Diaz’s] guilt.” Diaz, 221 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 1, 211 P.3d at 1

2010The state does not claim otherwise. 1 But a finding of fundamental error first requires a finding of error, Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 23 , 115 P.3d at 608 , and, in this ease, we conclude no error occurred. ¶ 6 “A wrongful search or seizure performed by a private citizen does not violate the Fourth Amendment unless the citizen is acting as an agent of the state.” State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287, ¶ 16 , 100 P.3d 452, 456 (App.2004).

2010The state does not claim otherwise. 1 But a finding of fundamental error first requires a finding of error, Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 23 , 115 P.3d at 608 , and, in this ease, we conclude no error occurred. ¶ 6 “A wrongful search or seizure performed by a private citizen does not violate the Fourth Amendment unless the citizen is acting as an agent of the state.” State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287, ¶ 16 , 100 P.3d 452, 456 (App.2004).

2005See State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 511 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1018 (1983) (“Failure to object to evidence, testimony or arguments waives these matters on appeal absent a finding of fundamental error.”) (emphasis added); see also State ex rel.

2005See State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 511 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1018 (1983) (“Failure to object to evidence, testimony or arguments waives these matters on appeal absent a finding of fundamental error.”) (emphasis added); see also State ex rel.

2016See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005); see also State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 , 812 P.2d 626, 627 (1991) (“Absent a finding of fundamental error, failure to raise an issue at trial . . . waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.”).

2016See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005); see also State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 , 812 P.2d 626, 627 (1991) (“Absent a finding of fundamental error, failure to raise an issue at trial . . . waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.”).

2024If fundamental, prejudicial error necessitates a new trial, no reason exists” to “delay justice and waste judicial resources” by “await[ing] post-conviction relief proceedings to grant that remedy”). ¶13 “On fundamental error review, the omission [of an instruction] must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances, and [w]e will not reverse a conviction unless we can reasonably find that the instructions, when taken as a whole, would mislead the jurors.” Sulu-Kerr, 256 Ariz. at 536, ¶ 20 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Gallegos, 178 Ariz. at 10 (“It is only

2024If a party does not make a proper objection, appellate review may be limited.”); see also State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 (1991) (“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.”); State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1, 12 (1994) (“[A] trial judge’s failure to give an instruction sua sponte provides grounds for reversal only if such failure is fundamental error.”); cf. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 145, ¶¶ 36-37 (2018) (rejecting State’s argument “that when a failure

2024If fundamental, prejudicial error necessitates a new trial, no reason exists” to “delay justice and waste judicial resources” by “await[ing] post-conviction relief proceedings to grant that remedy”). ¶13 “On fundamental error review, the omission [of an instruction] must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances, and [w]e will not reverse a conviction unless we can reasonably find that the instructions, when taken as a whole, would mislead the jurors.” Sulu-Kerr, 256 Ariz. at 536, ¶ 20 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Gallegos, 178 Ariz. at 10 (“It is only

2021See State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 133, ¶ 61 (2006).

2010Birch v. State, 19 Ariz. 366, 370 , 171 P. 135, 137 (1918) (“Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant ____”); see also Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (“Before a finding of fundamental error can be made, it must be apparent that error was committed by the trial court in some aspect of the proceedings.”). ¶ 14 Applying these principles, we find this record does not show that “only eleven jurors participated in the determination of [Diaz’s] guilt.” Diaz, 221 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 1, 211 P.3d at 1

2010Birch v. State, 19 Ariz. 366, 370 , 171 P. 135, 137 (1918) (“Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant ____”); see also Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (“Before a finding of fundamental error can be made, it must be apparent that error was committed by the trial court in some aspect of the proceedings.”). ¶ 14 Applying these principles, we find this record does not show that “only eleven jurors participated in the determination of [Diaz’s] guilt.” Diaz, 221 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 1, 211 P.3d at 1

2010Birch v. State, 19 Ariz. 366, 370 , 171 P. 135, 137 (1918) (“Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant ____”); see also Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (“Before a finding of fundamental error can be made, it must be apparent that error was committed by the trial court in some aspect of the proceedings.”). ¶ 14 Applying these principles, we find this record does not show that “only eleven jurors participated in the determination of [Diaz’s] guilt.” Diaz, 221 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 1, 211 P.3d at 1

2010Birch v. State, 19 Ariz. 366, 370 , 171 P. 135, 137 (1918) (“Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant ____”); see also Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (“Before a finding of fundamental error can be made, it must be apparent that error was committed by the trial court in some aspect of the proceedings.”). ¶ 14 Applying these principles, we find this record does not show that “only eleven jurors participated in the determination of [Diaz’s] guilt.” Diaz, 221 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 1, 211 P.3d at 1

1999See State v. Perkins, 141 Ariz. 278, 286 , 686 P.2d 1248, 1256 (1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. 284 , 731 P.2d 1228 (1987); Ariz. R.Crim.

1999See State v. Perkins, 141 Ariz. 278, 286 , 686 P.2d 1248, 1256 (1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. 284 , 731 P.2d 1228 (1987); Ariz. R.Crim.

1999See State v. Perkins, 141 Ariz. 278, 286 , 686 P.2d 1248, 1256 (1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. 284 , 731 P.2d 1228 (1987); Ariz. R.Crim.

1999See State v. Perkins, 141 Ariz. 278, 286 , 686 P.2d 1248, 1256 (1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. 284 , 731 P.2d 1228 (1987); Ariz. R.Crim.

1994Fundamental error is that "which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a party a right essential to his case." Johnson v. Elliot, 112 Ariz. 57, 61 , 537 P.2d 927, 931 (1975).

1994Fundamental error is that "which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a party a right essential to his case." Johnson v. Elliot, 112 Ariz. 57, 61 , 537 P.2d 927, 931 (1975).

1993E.g., State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 321 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1383 (1993); State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 51 , 821 P.2d 731, 742 (1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 137 , 121 L.Ed.2d 90 (1992).

1993E.g., State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 321 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1383 (1993); State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 51 , 821 P.2d 731, 742 (1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 137 , 121 L.Ed.2d 90 (1992).

1993E.g., State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 321 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1383 (1993); State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 51 , 821 P.2d 731, 742 (1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 137 , 121 L.Ed.2d 90 (1992).

1993E.g., State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 321 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1383 (1993); State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 51 , 821 P.2d 731, 742 (1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 137 , 121 L.Ed.2d 90 (1992).

1993Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, 58 Ariz. 1, 4 , 117 P.2d 90, 91 (1942) (“appeals from a judgment may not be taken piecemeal, and ... any question which could and should have been raised on the first appeal may not be presented to nor considered by this court on the second appeal.”); State v. Rhodes, 112 Ariz. 500, 506-507 , 543 P.2d 1129, 1135-36 (1975).

1993Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, 58 Ariz. 1, 4 , 117 P.2d 90, 91 (1942) (“appeals from a judgment may not be taken piecemeal, and ... any question which could and should have been raised on the first appeal may not be presented to nor considered by this court on the second appeal.”); State v. Rhodes, 112 Ariz. 500, 506-507 , 543 P.2d 1129, 1135-36 (1975).

1993Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, 58 Ariz. 1, 4 , 117 P.2d 90, 91 (1942) (“appeals from a judgment may not be taken piecemeal, and ... any question which could and should have been raised on the first appeal may not be presented to nor considered by this court on the second appeal.”); State v. Rhodes, 112 Ariz. 500, 506-507 , 543 P.2d 1129, 1135-36 (1975).

1993Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, 58 Ariz. 1, 4 , 117 P.2d 90, 91 (1942) (“appeals from a judgment may not be taken piecemeal, and ... any question which could and should have been raised on the first appeal may not be presented to nor considered by this court on the second appeal.”); State v. Rhodes, 112 Ariz. 500, 506-507 , 543 P.2d 1129, 1135-36 (1975).

1991Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 101-02 , 786 P.2d 948, 952-53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989); State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 407 , 752 P.2d 494, 496 (1988); State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 141-42 , 608 P.2d 77, 78-79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S. § 13-3987 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27.

1991Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 101-02 , 786 P.2d 948, 952-53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989); State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 407 , 752 P.2d 494, 496 (1988); State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 141-42 , 608 P.2d 77, 78-79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S. § 13-3987 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27.

1991Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 101-02 , 786 P.2d 948, 952-53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989); State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 407 , 752 P.2d 494, 496 (1988); State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 141-42 , 608 P.2d 77, 78-79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S. § 13-3987 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27.

1991Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 101-02 , 786 P.2d 948, 952-53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989); State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 407 , 752 P.2d 494, 496 (1988); State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 141-42 , 608 P.2d 77, 78-79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S. § 13-3987 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27.

1991Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 101-02 , 786 P.2d 948, 952-53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989); State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 407 , 752 P.2d 494, 496 (1988); State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 141-42 , 608 P.2d 77, 78-79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S. § 13-3987 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27.

1991Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 101-02 , 786 P.2d 948, 952-53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989); State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 407 , 752 P.2d 494, 496 (1988); State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 141-42 , 608 P.2d 77, 78-79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S. § 13-3987 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27.

1991Ariz.R.Crim.P. 21.3(c), 17 A.R.S.; State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 101-02 , 786 P.2d 948, 952-53 (1990); State v. White, 160 Ariz, 24, 31, 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989); State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 407 , 752 P.2d 494, 496 (1988); State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 141-42 , 608 P.2d 77, 78-79 (App. 1980); see also A.R.S. § 13-3987 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27.

1990State v. Smith, 138 Ariz. 79, 83 , 673 P.2d 17, 21 (1983); State v. Denny, 119 Ariz. 131, 134 , 579 P.2d 1101, 1104 (1978).

1990State v. Smith, 138 Ariz. 79, 83 , 673 P.2d 17, 21 (1983); State v. Denny, 119 Ariz. 131, 134 , 579 P.2d 1101, 1104 (1978).

1990State v. Smith, 138 Ariz. 79, 83 , 673 P.2d 17, 21 (1983); State v. Denny, 119 Ariz. 131, 134 , 579 P.2d 1101, 1104 (1978).

1990State v. Smith, 138 Ariz. 79, 83 , 673 P.2d 17, 21 (1983); State v. Denny, 119 Ariz. 131, 134 , 579 P.2d 1101, 1104 (1978).

1988Even a finding of fundamental error does not require reversal “when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and it can be said that the error did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute significantly to the verdict.” State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 468 , 687 P.2d 1220, 1223 (1984), quoting State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982).

1988Even a finding of fundamental error does not require reversal “when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and it can be said that the error did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute significantly to the verdict.” State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 468 , 687 P.2d 1220, 1223 (1984), quoting State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982).

1988Even a finding of fundamental error does not require reversal “when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and it can be said that the error did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute significantly to the verdict.” State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 468 , 687 P.2d 1220, 1223 (1984), quoting State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982).

1988Even a finding of fundamental error does not require reversal “when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and it can be said that the error did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute significantly to the verdict.” State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 468 , 687 P.2d 1220, 1223 (1984), quoting State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982).

1985State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450, 454 , 666 P.2d 1059, 1063 (1983).

1985State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450, 454 , 666 P.2d 1059, 1063 (1983).

1981Fundamental error has been variously defined by this court as “such error as goes to the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense,” State v. Gamble, 111 Ariz. 25, 26 , 523 P.2d 53, 54 (1974) and as “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possi ble for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420 , 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977).

1981Fundamental error has been variously defined by this court as “such error as goes to the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense,” State v. Gamble, 111 Ariz. 25, 26 , 523 P.2d 53, 54 (1974) and as “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possi ble for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420 , 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977).