Cited by

a pretrial delay of nine months sufficient to trigger further 10 STATE v. WHITESIDE Decision of the Court examination under the state constitution, and contemplated, without deciding, that a 7.5 months’ delay may “require further examination,”

(noting that Rule 403 “gives courts the power to protect witnesses against cross-examination that does little to impair credibility, but that may be invasive of their privacy[,]” and that “[t]he court may prevent cross- examination into collateral matters of a personal nature having minor probative value”)

P. 15.7(b)(2); see, (disclosure and testimony of chief witness two days before trial was not error because counsel was allowed to interview the witness and take other curative action, which counsel did not do).

or court’s] actions”); ¶ 5 (2010) (“When ‘matters are not included in the record on appeal, the missing portions of 4 TERRELL v. BECK Decision of the Court the record will be presumed to support the action of the trial court.’”) ().

(“[M]issing portions of the record will be presumed to support the action of the trial court.”).

(“Rule 8.2 does not grant [a defendant] any fundamental right which cannot be waived by his counsel.”).

“Where matters are not included in the record on appeal, the missing portions of the record will be presumed to support the action of the trial court.”

A defendant “must show that he was prejudiced by being prevented from presenting some defense, rather than by the state’s being allowed to make its case.” see also Vasko, 193 Ariz. at 147, ¶ 22 (It is not enough for the defendant to argue “that the state may not have made its case had the trial proceeded without” delay.).

“Where matters are not included in the record on appeal, the missing portions of the record will be presumed to support the action of the trial court.”

e assistance of counsel claim has waived the attorney-client privilege as “to the particular contentions asserted.” Cuffle, 171 Ariz. at 51–52 (holding “an attorney should be allowed to defend himself, at least with regard to the particular contentions asserted, by revealing ‘at least that much of what was previously privileged as is necessary’” (quoting Moreno, 128 Ariz. at 260)); –16 (1982) (stating an “attack on counsel’s competency[] has waived the attorney-client privilege as to the content

(“If evidence is objected to on one ground and admitted over the objection, other grounds not specified are waived.”).

(If there is no record to consider, we cannot review the claim’s merits.).

¶ 7 (App. 2016); –13 (1982) (“It is the duty of counsel who raise objections on appeal to see that the record before us contains the material to which they take exception.”).3 Story contends he was prejudiced by the court’s references to Douglas’s case and the court improperly relied on evidence from that case in d

Where matters are not included in the record on appeal, the missing portions of the record will be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” –13 (1982).

Romero bears the burden of ensuring the record on appeal is complete, -13 (1982), and “[w]hen the record is not complete, we must assume that any evidence not available on appeal supports the trial court’s actions,”

(holding delays sought by defense counsel bind the defendant 3 STATE v. TORRANCE Decision of the Court and constitute a waiver of the speedy trial right even without the defendant’s consent).

(noting that delays sought by defense counsel are binding on the defendant and waive his right to a speedy trial even if done without his consent).

Cota contends that had “the court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the 2014 case, the State would have not had the ability to call most of its witnesses.” However, a “[defendant] must show that he was prejudiced by being prevented from presenting some defense, rather than by the state’s being allowed to make its case.” (emphasis added; citing cases).

(“Where matters are not included in the record on appeal, the missing portions of the record will be presumed to support the action of the trial court.”).

(alteration in original) ( (upholding exclusion of evidence of paranoid schizophrenia when defense counsel failed to show witness’s diagnosis affected his ability as a witness)).