Cited by

“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough[.]” ¶ 101 n.9, n.9 (2004).

¶24 “A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 197

-40, ¶ 31, -35 (2004) ( ).

P. 11.1; Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960); ¶ 50 (2004).

¶ 101 n.9, n.9 (2004) (“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough.”); MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, n.7 (App. 2008) (declining to address argument in appellate brief lacking analysis); Ace Auto.

see 8 ¶ 101 n.9, n.9 (2004) (explaining that “[m]erely mentioning an argument is not enough”).

n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004); n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2007) (holding that appellate courts “will not consider argument posited without authority”).

A claim of prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only if “‘(1) misconduct is indeed present[,] and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.’” ¶ 145, (citation omitted).

Special action review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim is appropriate “[b]ecause the Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees the right to be free from subsequent prosecution” and, if applicable, “the clause is violated by the mere commencement of retrial.” ¶ 22

(instruction that misstates law is error).

See, ¶ 49, (holding that “fundamental error is ‘error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for [a] defendant to have had a fair trial.’” (citation omitted)).

“A statement is material if it could have affected the course or outcome of a proceeding.” ¶ 35, (citations omitted).

were violated.” *316 ¶ 29 A trial court must instruct the jury “on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.”

¶15 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that “(1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145

P. 12.9, 13.5(e), 16.1(b); -36, ¶¶ 16-17, -78 (2005) (“We require pretrial objections to an indictment in order to allow correction of any alleged defects before trial begins.”); -40, ¶ 31, -35 (2004) (“[A]ll challenges to a grand jury’s findings of probable cause must be made by motion followed by special action before trial; they are not reviewable on appeal.”).

“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145, (internal quotations omitted).

¶22 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate “(1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury‟s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145, (citation omitted).