Cited by

Seisinger , , ¶ 16, , quoting State v. Davolt , , ¶ 70

specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” a witness “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” “The test of whether a person is an expert is whether a jury can receive help on a particular subject from the witness.” ¶¶ 70, 73–76 (2004) (a detective who had attended crime 8 STATE v. WOOTEN Decision of the Court scene management and homici

“Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87 (2004).

¶11 “Matters of courtroom security are left to the discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 84 (2004).

Decision of the Court clear but wrong impression that being undecided was inappropriate coercing the verdict.” ¶19 “Jury coercion exists when the trial court’s actions or remarks, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, displaced the independent judgment of the jurors, or when the trial judge encourages a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict[.]” ¶ 94 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

¶ 6 (2015); ¶ 21 (2004).

Consideration of Mitigating Factor ¶22 Garcia contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider his age as a mitigating factor when imposing aggravated sentences for Counts 3 through 8.3 ¶ 112 (2004) (sentencing determinations reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

¶ 62 (2004) ( ¶ 14 (2002), ¶ 21 (2004)).

¶ 69, (in the context of Arizona Rule of Evidence 702).

Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable jurors “could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.”

¶105 A motion for judgment of acquittal may be granted only if “no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 87

Inevitable Discovery ¶23 Although we conclude the evidence found in Snyder’s backpack was obtained as the result of an unlawful search, “[i]llegally obtained physical evidence may be admitted if the State can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984).

See Olson, 495 U.S. at 96–97 (“Olson’s status as an overnight guest is alone enough to show that he had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”); ¶ 24, (“Article 2, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution, as well, protects the right to privacy in temporary residences.”).

(quoting Kannankeril v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 809 (3d Cir. 1997)); ¶ 70 (2004) ("The degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility.").