Cited by

“Whether a prosecutor’s comment is improper depends upon the context in which it was made and whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive it to be a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.” – 22 ¶ 104 (2018) ( ¶ 33 (2003), supplemented, ).

Thus, to preserve the issue of prosecutorial error, defense counsel’s objection must have “adequately raise[d] the claim of prosecutorial [error] in the trial court.” ¶ 30 (2003).

the totality of the circumstances.’” ¶ 39 (2012) ( ¶ 33 (2003)).

¶25 Informing our analysis of the nature and effect of the (F)(5) amendments with respect to Greene’s sentence of death is the fact that the legislature amended (F)(2) in 2003 to address the use of contemporaneous serious offenses effected by this Court’s superseded by statute, 2003 Ariz. Sess.

¶ 33 (2003) (explaining that the propriety of a prosecutor’s comment depends on the comment’s context).

Courts “look[] at the context in which the statements were made as well as ‘the entire record and to the totality of the circumstances.’” ¶ 39 (2012) ( ¶ 33 (2003)).

¶14 We will not examine a prosecutor’s alleged misstatement in a vacuum but “look at the context and examine the entire record and totality of the circumstances.” ¶ 33 (2003).

“The purpose of an objection is to permit the [superior] court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” ¶ 30 (2003) ().

¶¶ 29–30 (explaining parties cannot preserve an issue for appeal unless they “make a timely objection stating the specific ground for [the] objection”); ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (explaining this court “generally do[es] not consider issues, even constitution

§ 13-117(B); see also Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 613-14 (1965); ¶ 26 (2003).

¶ 33 (2003) (citations omitted).

“Whether a prosecutor’s comment is improper depends upon the context in which it was made and whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive it to be a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.” ¶ 33 (2003).

This court reviews the superior court’s “determination of the relevancy and admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 15 (2003).

General objections do not suffice, ¶ 4 (App. 2008), and result in review for fundamental error, ¶ 12 (2018); ¶ 30 (2003).

¶ 26 (2003) (prosecutor generally may not comment on a defendant's decision not to testify).

State v. Rutledge , , ¶ 26, (citing Griffin v. California , 380 U.S. 609 , 615, 85 S.Ct.

¶ 91 (2018) (explaining that because the defendant failed to preserve his cumulative prosecutorial misconduct objection at trial, it would be reviewed for fundamental error); ¶ 30 (2003) (holding that an objection based on “shifting the burden” failed to preserve for appeal the issue of prosecutorial misconduct).

¶ 30 (2003) (“The purpose of an objection is to permit the trial court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” (); ¶ 27 (App. 2016) (use of the word “object,” or any specif

“Whether a prosecutor’s comment is improper depends upon the context in which it was made and whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive it to be a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.” 30 ¶ 33 (2003), supplemented