Cited by

See Ariz. Const. art. 4, § 22; ¶ 100 (2004).

¶ 63 (2004) (holding court abused its discretion by admitting crime scene photographs of victims’ charred bodies because the defendant did not contest fact at issue and photographs were both cumulative and likely to inflame jury).

When reviewing a motion to suppress, we review the trial court’s factual findings for an abuse of discretion, “but review de novo the trial court’s ultimate legal determination that the search complied with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 21 (2004).

“Juror misconduct warrants a new trial only if ‘the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.’” ¶ 58 (2004) (emphasis omitted) ().

We will not, however, presume prejudice “without the requisite showing that the jury received and considered extrinsic evidence on the issues.” (emphasis added) ( ¶ 59 (2004)).

at 563 ¶ 16; ¶ 87 (2004).

See Thompson, ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶ 63, 502 P.3d at 454 (“Extensive training is not required but [the party proposing expert testimony must show] a degree of expertise in the subject such that ‘a jury can receive help on a particular subject from the witness.’” ( ¶ 70 (2004))).

¶27 A trial court’s erroneous admission of evidence, including hearsay, can be harmless under some circumstances, including when it is “entirely cumulative,” or when there is “overwhelming” properly admitted evidence of a defendant’s guilt, (erroneous admission of photographs and videotape harmless when other evidence of guilt “overwhelming”); (listing variety of factors “frequently considered by courts” in determining harmless error).

Extensive training is not required but only a degree of expertise in the subject such that “a jury can receive help on a particular subject from the witness.” ¶¶ 70, 75 (2004).

¶ 57 (2004) (“[B]are allegations of juror misconduct are insufficient to trigger the trial court’s duty to investigate the matter further.”).