Cited by

These trial errors are “structural errors,” id., and a defendant who shows structural error occurred is not required to show prejudice, ¶ 7 (App. 2012).

¶26 We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo, ¶ 5 (2014), and will only reverse if the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence, ¶ 27 (App. 2012).

See, e.g., Ring, 204 Ariz. at 552–53 & n.16; ¶ 7 (App. 2012); Hancock, 240 Ariz. at 396, ¶ 7; Dayton, 257 Ariz. at 34–35, ¶¶ 1, 9 (citing Ring and Hancock, which rely on Waller).

“A ‘public trial’ is ‘a trial which is open to the general public at all times.’” (quoting People v. Woodward, 14 Cal.

¶14 Second, cell phones are "ubiquitous" repositories of communications and photos "for a variety of purposes," State v. Tucker , , ¶ 17, and "[e]ven the most basic phones ...

¶23 “Rub-off occurs when the jury’s unfavorable impression of the defendant against whom the evidence is properly admitted influence[s] the way the jurors view the other defendant.” ¶ 42 (App. 2012) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

see also, ¶ 43 (App. 2012) (no abuse of discretion when State presented events of conspiracy committed by co-defendants that did not involve the defendant); see generally Ariz. R. Crim.

5 STATE v. HARDEN Decision of the Court the way the jurors view the other defendant.” ¶ 42 (App. 2012) (internal quotation omitted).

The defendant has the burden “to demonstrate that the court’s failure to sever caused compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.” ¶ 40 (App. 2012).

10 “We review the denial of a Rule 20 motion de *106 novo.” , ¶ 27

See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984) (establishing test for determining whether closure of criminal proceeding is constitutional); (applying Waller test to partial courtroom closure in Arizona).

¶ 49, (declarations of coconspirator admissible “and there is no requirement that a coconspirator’s statement satisfy the Confrontation Clause”).

because he proved his entrapment defense by clear and convincing evidence.” We review de novo the court’s denial of the Rule 20 motion, and we review the court’s ruling on the motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion

¶ 29, (noting it is the province of the jury, not the appellate court, to assess the witnesses’ credibility) ( ).

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984); -33, ¶¶ 9-13, -56 (App. 2012) (discussing Waller and noting that “the Waller test applies to both complete and partial closures of Arizona criminal trials”).

Blackman, ¶¶ 42, 48, 50, 38 P.3d at 1203, 1204, 1205; (recognizing “‘facially incriminating’” evidence from codefendant as ground for severance under Rule 13.4)