State v. Ring
In State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534, 565-66, PP 106-07, 65 P.3d 915, 946-47 (2003), the majority gave examples of structural error. 204 Ariz. at 552-53, P 46, 65 P.3d at 933-34.
The listing did not include the error in Henley. Id.
On the other hand, the two concurring/dissenting justices in Ring did refer to State v. Henley as "structural error."
Again, though not a holding, the majority in Ring certainly had an opportunity to agree with the dissenting justices on this issue, and did not.
Just as the supreme court listed the structural errors in Ring, it repeated that listing this year in Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 585 n.2, P 10, 208 P.3d at 236 n.2.
An error in a twelve-person jury as contrasted with an eight-person jury was not listed. Id.