Cited by

(“When previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at the trial and presented to the jury, there is no Brady violation.”); (same).

Snow- Ingram has not shown “no reasonable judge would have reached the same result under the circumstances.” ¶ 40 (2004); (“The choice of .

There may be violations of Rule 15.1, although arguably harmless, where there is no Brady violation.”

(holding that the state was not required to notify grand jury “that crimes other than murder might be involved”); Mauro, 139 Ariz. at 425 (finding “that the state is not required .

(“When previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at the trial and is presented to the jury, there is no Brady violation.”); (finding failure to disclose “merely cumulative” evidence did not require reversal).

(“When 7 STATE v. JACKSON Decision of the Court previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at the trial and is presented to the jury, there is no Brady violation.”).

(holding that the State satisfies its obligations under Brady “[w]hen previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at the trial and is presented to the jury,” even if the late disclosure affected the defendant’s trial preparation and strategy).

P. 15.1 (governing State's disclosure obligations); - 5 (1981) (defendant must prove he was prejudiced by a court's "choice of sanction or the choice of no sanction for a violation").

(“When previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at the trial and is presented to the jury, there is no Brady violation”).3 ¶23 Phillips also has not shown how Young seeking a rehearing in his pursuing post-conviction relief raises issues relevant in her direct appeal in this cas

“The test for a Brady violation is whether the undisclosed material would have created a reasonable doubt had it been presented to the jury.” (citing Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112).

“The test for a Brady violation is whether the undisclosed material would have created a reasonable doubt had it been presented to the jury.”

¶21 “The test for a Brady violation is whether the undisclosed material would have created a reasonable doubt had it been presented to the jury.”

n.1, n.1 (1981) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.

(finding no reversible error when previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at trial and presented to the jury).

5 the evidence underlying a grand jury indictment.” -43, -86 (1983) (a trial court is prohibited from “considering an attack on an indictment based on the nature, weight or sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury”).

However, the “court [is] not required to single out for special instruction the point made by defendant’s requested instruction.” , , (when jury is correctly instructed on self-defense there is no error in court’s refusal to “reiterate, enlarge or couch the law applicable in [defendant’s] language”) ( , ).