fundamental error in Arizona

2026Fundamental error “takes away a right that is essential to [the defendant’s] defense, and is of such magnitude that he could not have received a fair trial.” Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 24 .

2024Fundamental error goes to the "foundation of the case," takes away "a right essential to his defense" and is "of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial." State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90 (1984)).

2024Fundamental error goes to the "foundation of the case," takes away "a right essential to his defense" and is "of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial." State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90 (1984)).

2023Fundamental 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.” Id. at ¶ 19 (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90 (1984)).

2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow

2024Gendron concluded that “[n]either the fundamental error doctrine nor any other doctrine” justified this Court’s “insertion of a new defense into the case.” Id.

2018“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.” State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 385 (1991). ¶9 Properly construing the record, the prosecutor’s reference to “us” in “[t]his is the first time any of us are hearing about Juan?” was not improper.

2016"Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error." State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 385 (1991). ¶9 Arizona Rule of Evidence 702(a) provides that a witness may testify in the form of opinion if "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" and the expert's knowledge "will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue[.]" We liberally construe whether a witness is qualified as an expert.

2018“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.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572 (1993) (quotation omitted); see State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 (1991) (“To qualify as ‘fundamental error,’ . . . the error must be clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.”).

2017See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (“Fundamental error review . . . applies when a defendant fails to object to alleged trial error.”) (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572 (1993)).

2024See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” (quoting Armstrong, 380 U.S. at 552 )).

2021Mack v. Cruikshank, 196 Ariz. 541 , 544 ¶ 6 (App. 1999). ¶6 “‘The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”’” Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300 , 305 ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).

1993Fundamental error goes to “the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense;” it must be “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 155 , 812 P.2d at 628 (quoting State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424 , 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988)).

1993Fundamental error goes to “the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense;” it must be “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 155 , 812 P.2d at 628 (quoting State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424 , 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988)).

2005“Fundamental error is ‘error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.’ ” Id. at 450, ¶ 86 , 94 P.3d at 1145 (quoting State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420 , 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977)). ¶ 22 Roseberry’s trial fell into a procedural gap caused by a change in notice requirements under the rules of criminal procedure.

2005“Fundamental error is ‘error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.’ ” Id. at 450, ¶ 86 , 94 P.3d at 1145 (quoting State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420 , 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977)). ¶ 22 Roseberry’s trial fell into a procedural gap caused by a change in notice requirements under the rules of criminal procedure.

2016If an error occurred, “the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error must be evaluated in light of the entire record.” Id. at 436 (citations omitted). 5 STATE v. DEVORCE Decision of the Court Moreover, to obtain a reversal, a defendant must also show that the fundamental error caused him prejudice.

2016Fundamental error is an error that “goes to the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.” State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435 (1981) (citation and quotation omitted).

1993Fundamental error is error that “goes to the foundation of the case or takes from a defendant a right essential to Ms defense.” State v. Allen, 157 Ariz. 165, 170 , 755 P.2d 1153, 1158 (1988), quoting State v. Gamble, 111 Ariz. 25, 26 , 523 P.2d 53, 54 (1974).

1993Fundamental error is error that “goes to the foundation of the case or takes from a defendant a right essential to Ms defense.” State v. Allen, 157 Ariz. 165, 170 , 755 P.2d 1153, 1158 (1988), quoting State v. Gamble, 111 Ariz. 25, 26 , 523 P.2d 53, 54 (1974).

2018"Fundamental error is limited to those rare cases that involve 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." State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 12 (2009) (internal quotation omitted).

2015See State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582 , ¶¶ 9-12 & n. 2, 208 P.3d 233 , 235-36 & 236 n. 2 (2009) (discussing different standards of appellate review); see also Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 1003 (9th Cir.2004) (noting fundamental error is similar to, but somewhat broader than, federal plain error standard); State v. Henderson, 209 Ariz. 300, n. 4 , 100 P.3d 911 , 916 n. 4 (App.2004) (“plain error” is “the closest analogue to our doctrine of fundamental error”), vacated in part on other grounds, 210 Ariz. 561 , 115 P.3d 601 (2005). ¶ 31 These requirements of Rule 21.2 are neither onerous no

2006See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 1 , 115 P.3d at 603 ; see also State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, ¶ 24 , 109 P.3d 571, 579 (App.2005); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶ 4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App.2002) (“[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error” that is not waived by defendant’s failure to raise it). ¶ 9 Fundamental error is “ ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ” Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19 , 115 P

2006See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 1 , 115 P.3d at 603 ; see also State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, ¶ 24 , 109 P.3d 571, 579 (App.2005); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶ 4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App.2002) (“[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error” that is not waived by defendant’s failure to raise it). ¶ 9 Fundamental error is “ ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ” Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19 , 115 P

2008See State v. Alatorre, 191 Ariz. 208, ¶¶ 12-13 , 953 P.2d 1261, 1265 (App.1998). “ ‘Fundamental error is that which goes to the heart of the defendant’s case or takes from him a right essential to his defense.’ ” See State v. Phillips, 202 Ariz. 427, ¶ 48 , 46 P.3d 1048, 1058 (2002), quoting State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 13-14 , 770 P.2d 313, 317-18 (1989).

2008See State v. Alatorre, 191 Ariz. 208, ¶¶ 12-13 , 953 P.2d 1261, 1265 (App.1998). “ ‘Fundamental error is that which goes to the heart of the defendant’s case or takes from him a right essential to his defense.’ ” See State v. Phillips, 202 Ariz. 427, ¶ 48 , 46 P.3d 1048, 1058 (2002), quoting State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 13-14 , 770 P.2d 313, 317-18 (1989).

2002P. 21.3(c); State v. Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. 404, ¶2 , 984 P.2d 12, 13 (1999). ¶ 15 Fundamental error is error “ ‘going to the foundation of the case or that which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 601 , 863 P.2d 881, 893 (1993) (quoting State v. Libberton, 141 Ariz. 132, 138 , 685 P.2d 1284, 1290 (1984)).

2002P. 21.3(c); State v. Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. 404, ¶2 , 984 P.2d 12, 13 (1999). ¶ 15 Fundamental error is error “ ‘going to the foundation of the case or that which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 601 , 863 P.2d 881, 893 (1993) (quoting State v. Libberton, 141 Ariz. 132, 138 , 685 P.2d 1284, 1290 (1984)).

2016“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.” State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, 268, ¶ 25 (App. 2005). ¶8 “Arizona has long recognized that testimony about prior bad acts does not necessarily provide grounds for reversal.” State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290, 305, ¶ 34 (2000).

2016"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." State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, 268, ¶ 25 (App. 2005) (quotation omitted).

1999Fundamental error exists when the error “ ‘goes to the foundation of the case, or ... takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” State v. Wussler, 139 Ariz. 428, 430 , 679 P.2d 74, 76 (1984) (citing State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 397 , 636 P.2d 637, 645 (1981)); State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450, 454 , 666 P.2d 1059, 1063 (1983). ¶ 18 Appellant’s defense rested solely on his claim of total innocence or mistaken identity, rather than on an assertion that although he committed the murder, he did so mistakenly or without actual reflection.

1999Fundamental error exists when the error “ ‘goes to the foundation of the case, or ... takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” State v. Wussler, 139 Ariz. 428, 430 , 679 P.2d 74, 76 (1984) (citing State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 397 , 636 P.2d 637, 645 (1981)); State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450, 454 , 666 P.2d 1059, 1063 (1983). ¶ 18 Appellant’s defense rested solely on his claim of total innocence or mistaken identity, rather than on an assertion that although he committed the murder, he did so mistakenly or without actual reflection.

1989The Arizona Supreme Court has defined fundamental error as follows: “Fundamental error ... is such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216, 222 , 349 P.2d 781, 785 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977).

1989The Arizona Supreme Court has defined fundamental error as follows: “Fundamental error ... is such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216, 222 , 349 P.2d 781, 785 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977).

2008Further, the court in LeBlanc specifically stated that the instruction approved in Wussler, a case that involved the very crimes at issue here, did “not violate United States or Arizona Consti- *52 tutions,” and “the giving of a Wussler-type instruction does not rise to the level of fundamental error.” LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. at 439-40 , 924 P.2d at 443-44 ; see Wussler, 139 Ariz. at 429 , 679 P.2d at 75.

2008Further, the court in LeBlanc specifically stated that the instruction approved in Wussler, a case that involved the very crimes at issue here, did “not violate United States or Arizona Consti- *52 tutions,” and “the giving of a Wussler-type instruction does not rise to the level of fundamental error.” LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. at 439-40 , 924 P.2d at 443-44 ; see Wussler, 139 Ariz. at 429 , 679 P.2d at 75.

2024See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” (quoting Armstrong, 380 U.S. at 552 )).

2020“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)).

2015Fundamental 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.” State v. Moreno- Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, 352, ¶ 7 , 185 P.3d 135, 138 (App. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2015Fundamental 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.” State v. Moreno- Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, 352, ¶ 7 , 185 P.3d 135, 138 (App. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2024To prevail under the fundamental error standard, a defendant must show an error that “goes to the foundation of a case, takes away an essential right, or is so egregious that [the] defendant could not have received a fair trial.” State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543, 548, ¶ 14 (2021) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

2024To establish prejudice, a defendant must show that “without the fundamental error, a reasonable jury . . . could have reached a different [verdict].” Id. at 548, ¶ 14 (internal quotation and citation omitted). ¶21 No error occurs when a trial court omits a particular instruction if the instructions given “fairly represent[] the applicable law.” State v. Axley, 132 Ariz. 383, 392 (1982).

2023To prevail on a fundamental-error claim, a defendant “may not rely upon ‘speculation’ to carry his burden.” State v. Dickinson, 233 Ariz. 527, 531, ¶ 13 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).

2022But the dissent overlooks the very next, crucial passage from Dickinson: “Fundamental error alone is not sufficient for reversal; [the defendant] must show resulting prejudice.” 233 Ariz. at 531 ¶ 13.

2000In essence, such an instruction would state that while the City could not be discharged of its duty by pointing to APS's responsibility for maintaining streetlights, the jury should allocate their relative fault. [5] The trial court ultimately rejected the untimeliness claim. [6] Fundamental error is error that "goes to the foundation of the case or which takes from a party a right essential to his case." Long, 131 Ariz. at 217 , 639 P.2d at 1042 (citing Johnson v. Elliott, 112 Ariz. 57 , 537 P.2d 927 (1975)). [7] The reporter's transcript incorrectly refers to this witness as David Bennett. [

2000In essence, such an instruction would state that while the City could not be discharged of its duty by pointing to APS's responsibility for maintaining streetlights, the jury should allocate their relative fault. [5] The trial court ultimately rejected the untimeliness claim. [6] Fundamental error is error that "goes to the foundation of the case or which takes from a party a right essential to his case." Long, 131 Ariz. at 217 , 639 P.2d at 1042 (citing Johnson v. Elliott, 112 Ariz. 57 , 537 P.2d 927 (1975)). [7] The reporter's transcript incorrectly refers to this witness as David Bennett. [