Cited by

11 STATE V. RUSHING Opinion of the Court or amount[ed] to a denial of justice.” n.18 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds.

at ¶ 71 ( n.18 (1983), 3 STATE v RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.

Arizona’s elimination of peremptory strikes did not remove trial courts from being in the best position to assess potential jurors’ fairness and impartiality, and it did not alter the abuse-of-discretion standard, which requires affirmance unless the court’s action was “clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount[ed] to a denial of justice.” n.18 (1983), superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.

–88 (1983) (finding color photos of charred body, damaged skull, and exposed 5 STATE v. MEDINA Decision of the Court brain matter inadmissible); –09, ¶¶ 61, 63 (2004) (finding crime

n.18 (1983) (stating that an abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is “not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence”), ¶ 7 (2020); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

( superseded by statute on other grounds).

A court abuses its discretion when its reasons for a ruling are “clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” Riley, 248 Ariz. at 167 ¶ 7 ( n.18 (1983)).

An abuse of discretion occurs when the superior court’s refusal to instruct the jury on a particular point of law is “clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount[s] to a denial of justice.” n.18 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds.

“[A]ny photograph of the deceased in any murder case [is relevant] because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” ( superseded by statute on other grounds).

v. Microsoft Corp., ¶ 17 (App. 2006) ( n.18 (1983).

An abuse of discretion occurs when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” n.18 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds.

n.18 (1983) (noting the trial court “has a more immediate grasp of all the facts of the case, an opportunity to see the parties, lawyers and witnesses, and [it] can better assess the impact of what occurs” in court).

at 295-96, ¶ 9; n.18 (1983) (“Something is discretionary because it is based on an assessment of conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations which vary from case to case .

An abuse of discretion occurs when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” n. 18 (1983).

As a result, he contends the “shock value” of the photographs “clearly outweigh[ed] any minimal probative value.” superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S.

n.18 (1983), superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.

State v. Chappell , , 235, ¶ 16, , 1182 (2010) (citing State v. Chapple , , 297, , 1224 (1983) ).

n.18 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds, ¶ 154 (2016).

2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.

Cf. Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 340 ¶ 40, 111 P.3d at 382 (“We begin from the premise that any photograph of the deceased in any murder case is relevant because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” (internal quotations, edits, and citation omitted)); superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.

An abuse of discretion occurs when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” n.18 (1983), superseded on other grounds by statute, A.R.S.

-98 (1983), superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.