Cited by

8 STATE v. CARR Decision of the Court ¶21 A declaration of mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” ¶ 43 (2003).

(“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”); ¶ 44 (2003) (“Although evidence of prior crimes generally is not admissible, courts will not reverse a conviction based on the erroneous admission of evidence unless there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.”) (internal citation and quotation

3 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict[s].” ¶ 2 (App. 2016) ( n.1, ¶ 1 (2003)).

¶ 18, ¶ 18, (erroneous jury instruction subject to harmless error review) (citation omitted).

Not only are jurors presumed to follow their instructions, ¶ 48 (2003), but jurors here 7 STATE v. BLANCHARD Decision of the Court clearly considered the charges independently, as demonstrated by their inability to reach verdicts on three of the counts.

If the court elects to give a curative instruction, however, it must not “express[] ‘an opinion as to what the evidence proves,’ in a way that interferes “with the jury’s independent evaluation of that evidence.’ ” ¶¶ 49-51 , , see Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 27.

¶ 36, (concluding no error to exclude under Rule 403 evidence of third- party culpability founded on mere suspicion or speculation).

an evidentiary hearing to question the juror about her “previously undisclosed ‘moral issues’” and to ask “related questions on why this was not answered in voir dire.” ¶34 A declaration of mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” ¶ 43 (2003) (citation omitted).

See Payne, 233 Ariz. at 513 (noting “the trial court sustained several objections and issued curative instructions” after the prosecutor posed improper questions, and “[w]e assume the jurors followed those instructions”); ¶ 46 (2003) (noting the trial court issued a limiting instruction to cure improper testimony and, absent defense counsel’s request for “further guidance for the jury, we assume the jurors followed the court’s instruction”); -51 (1990) (concluding any prejudice caused by an exp

¶ 36 (2003) (noting that a trial court need not allow “mere suspicion or speculation” regarding another’s guilt, and that proffered third-party culpability evidence is irrelevant if it fails to create a reasonable doubt regarding the defendant’s guilt or if it fails the Rule 403 test due to its “tenuous and spec

¶13 A mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” ¶ 43 (2003) ().

2, was untimely disclosed for the first time forty-four 48 STATE V. GOUDEAU Opinion of the Court days into trial (after Gibbons’s mother and the medical examiner had already testified), Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.1(b)–(c), and “failed the [Evidence] Rule 403 balancing test.” ¶ 35

This remedy “’should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.’” ¶ 43 (2003) ().

¶3 A declaration of a mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” ¶ 43, supplemented on other grounds by P.3d 58 (2003).

We will only reverse a superior court's denial of a mistrial if “there is a ‘reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had the [improper] evidence not been admitted.’” ¶ 44, (citation omitted).

Holle, 238 Ariz. at __, ¶¶ 30-31; Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 10–11, 15 (1999); (erroneous jury instructions subject to harmless-error review).

¶12 A declaration of mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” ¶ 43 (2003) (citation omitted).