Cited by

This is because “the jury has a right to know any fact which tends to show a witness is biased, prejudiced or hostile in passing on that witness’ credibility.” (cleaned up); –98 (1996).

“The decision to grant a mistrial is left to the sound discretion of the [superior] court and in the absence of a showing of abuse of that discretion, the [superior] court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal.” (citation omitted).

is unexpectedly interjected, the trial court must consider “(1) whether the remarks called to the attention of the jurors matters that they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict, and (2) the probability that the jurors, under the circumstances of the particular case, were influenced by the remarks.” ().

¶14 This court will not reverse a conviction “for insufficiency of the evidence unless there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” ().

A declaration of mistrial is "the most dramatic remedy for trial error," ¶ 40 (2003) (quotation omitted), and the superior court should grant a mistrial only when a trial error denies the defendant a fair trial

-63, ¶¶ 15, 19 (2011); (“[A] judgment of acquittal prior to verdict may be entered only if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”); State v., ¶ 22 (App. 1999) (“We will not reverse the trier of fact’s decision if substantial evidence supports it.”).

To make this determination, the superior court should consider “(1) whether the remarks called to the attention of the jurors matters that they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict, and (2) the probability that the jurors, under the circumstances of the particular case, were influenced by the remarks.”

the Arizona Supreme Court noted that, in making this determination, the court should consider “(1) whether the remarks called to the attention of the jurors matters that they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict, and (2) the probability that the jurors, under the circumstances

Because “[m]isconduct alone will not cause a reversal,” “[t]he focus is on the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”

We will only reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence if there is “no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” ( ).

“was caught multiple times lying [and] fabricating stories.” This court will not reverse a conviction “for insufficiency of the evidence unless there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” ( ).

¶6 This court will not reverse a conviction “for insufficiency of the evidence unless there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” ( ).

(noting first prong of test to determine if trial court should grant mistrial after improper remarks are made is whether it called jurors’ attention to “matters that they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict”).

¶ 12 A conviction will not be reversed for insufficient evidence “unless there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” , ( , ).

this court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to bring out on cross-examination that defendant’s brother, who testified on defendant’s behalf at trial, had refused to honor a state subpoena.

723 , 98 L.Ed.2d 672 (1988); , (inquiry into defense witness’s refusal to honor state’s subpoena is relevant to credibility).