§ 4.11.4 Structural Error. Structural errors “deprive defendants of basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for guilt or innocence.” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 560, 565, ¶ 12, 115 P.3d 601, 605 (2005) (quoting Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1999)). Errors are considered structural when they “affect the ‘entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end,’ and thus taint ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds.’” Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 565, ¶ 12, 115 P.3d at 605 (quoting State v. Anderson, 197 Ariz. 314, 323, ¶ 22, 4 P.3d 369, 378 (2000); Ariz. v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-08 (1991)). The nature of structural error requires reversal without requiring a defendant to show that prejudice occurred in a particular case. See State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534, 552, ¶ 45, 65 P.3d 915, 933 (2003); State v. Lizardi, 234 Ariz. 501, 505, ¶ 14, 323 P.3d 1152, 1156 (App. 2014).
Arizona appellate courts treat “relatively few” types of errors as categorically structural. State v. Medina, 232 Ariz. 391, 407, ¶ 67, 306 P.3d 48, 64 (2013); Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 565, ¶ 12, 115 P.3d at 605. These include:
· A biased trial judge.
· A complete denial of criminal defense counsel.
· Denial of self-representation in criminal cases.
· Defective reasonable doubt jury instructions.
· Excluding jurors of the defendant’s race from grand jury selection.
· Erroneously excusing a juror because of his views on capital punishment.
· Denial of a public criminal trial.
State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 10 n.2, 208 P.3d 233, 236 (2009); State v. Torres, 208 Ariz. 340, 344, ¶ 11, 93 P.3d 1056, 1060 (2004); State v. Ring...
