Cited by

¶¶ 10, 12 (App. 2000).4 We held in Morales that such questions “may be appropriate” if the defendant opens the door on direct or “when the only possible explanation for the inconsistent testimony is deceit or lying.” Id.

-76, ¶¶ 13-15 (App. 2000).

Those instructions “closely tracked the language” of the applicable rules and “did not misstate the law.” ¶ 4 (App. 2000); see also Ariz. R. Evid.

“Were they lying” questions are not categorically prohibited, but parties nonetheless should “refrain from asking such questions.” ¶ 13 (App. 2000).6 “[S]uch questions may be appropriate when the only possible explanation for the inconsistent testimony is deceit or lying or when a defendant has opened the door by testifying about the veracity of other witnesses on direct examination.” Id.

¶19 Consistent with the statute’s plain language and history, a defendant may be convicted under subsection 13-3405.A.4 by importing marijuana into the state without proof the defendant imported it “for sale.” The superior court’s instruction, therefore, “closely tracked the language of the current statute [and] did not misstate the law.” ¶ 4 (App. 2000).

See Bruggeman, 161 Ariz. at 510; ¶ 5 (App. 2000) (noting that any alleged ambiguity in jury instructions are alleviated when closing arguments make clear the requisite elements of the charged offense).

We review a court’s decision to adopt a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2003), and review de novo whether a jury instruction correctly states the law, ¶ 4 (App. 2000).

in light of the entire record.” ¶ 9 , ( ).

See § 28-1381(A)(1); ¶¶ 3, 5, -32 (App. 2000).

See § 28-1381(A)(l); ¶¶ 3, 5 , -32 (App.2000).

(alleged ambiguity in instruction alleviated by prosecutor’s closing argument); (“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”).

P.3d 630 (App. 2000); see State v. L eslie, P.2d 719 (1985) (trial court does not err in refusing instructions that d o not correc tly state the law).