Cited by

¶109 We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct, ¶ 16 (2003), and a decision whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing based on alleged misconduct, Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 52.

-48, ¶ 17 (2003) (stating that a defendant bears the burden of establishing that jurors “received and considered extrinsic evidence”).

(jury weighs witness credibility).

Even so, “physical evidence is not required to sustain a conviction if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 49 (2003).

(“[P]hysical evidence is not required to sustain a conviction if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

¶64 Corpus delicti requires the state to show that the victim’s “injury was caused by criminal conduct rather than by suicide or accident” to avoid a conviction “based solely upon an uncorroborated confession or admission.” ¶ 43 (2003).

¶ 43 (2003); ¶¶ 7–8 (App. 2004).

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 37 (2003), but review purely legal issues and constitutional issues de novo, State v. Moody (Moody II), ¶ 62 (2004).

See ¶ 49 (2003) (“[P]hysical evidence is not required to sustain a conviction if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal citation omitted)); (“[O]ne witness, if relevant and credible, is sufficient to support a convic

¶ 49 (2003) (“[P]hysical evidence is not required to sustain a conviction if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted)); (“[O]ne witness, if relevant and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction.” (c

“Once the defendant shows that the jury has received and considered extrinsic evidence, prejudice must be presumed and a new trial granted unless the prosecutor proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not taint the verdict.” ¶ 16 (2003).

¶ 10 (2013) ( ¶ 16 (2003)).

¶ 16, (“Once the defendant shows that the jury has received and considered extrinsic evidence, prejudice must be presumed[.]”).

¶ 43 (2003) (“The State must establish the corpus delicti of a homicide by showing that the alleged injury to the victim — death, in this case — occurred and that the injury was caused by criminal conduct rather than by suicide or accident.”) (citations omitted).