Cited by

The motion or objection must state specific grounds in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” (citation omitted).

Sec., n.9, n.9 (2004) (“‘[O]pening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an 8 appellant’s position on the issues raised.

¶ 2 n. 1, , 1130 n. 1 (2004).

¶¶ 223, 225, (evidence of blood throughout house, victim’s defensive wound, broken fingernail, and lost contact lens supported finding of violent struggle and supported finding “‘murder .

435 n. 1, , 1130 n. 1 (2004).

452 n. 9, ¶ 101, , 1147 n. 9 (2004); ¶ 12 , (holding a pro per litigant to the same standard as an attorney).

452 n. 9, ¶ 101, , 1147 n. 9 (2004) (failure to develop argument usually results in abandonment and waiver of issue).

¶ 226, (holding that the (F)(6) aggravator was not established beyond a reasonable doubt when “evidence was presented that [the defendant] was in a ‘dissociated state’ due to psychosis”) (emphasis ad

n. 9, ¶ 101 , , 1147 n. 9 (2004).

(“Although the trial court’s [decision] ...

(“In determining whether reasonable grounds exist [for full Rule 11 evaluations], a judge may rely, among other factors, on his own observations of the defendant‟s demeanor and ability to answer questions.”).

("In determining whether reasonable grounds exist [for full Rule 11 evaluations], a judge may rely, among other factors, on his own observations of the defendant's demeanor and ability to answer questions.”).

o attenuated as to dissipate the taint.‟” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963), quoting Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 (1939); (suppression required only when “causal connection exists between a constitutional violation and the government‟s obtaining of [the] evidence”); n.6, n.6 (2004) (applying federal exclusionary-rule principles to violation of Rule 6.1 right to counsel).

Moreover, “a conviction precludes review of the finding of probable cause made by a grand jury.” n.3 ¶ 31, n.3 (2004).

¶ 34 Absent fundamental error, “ ‘if evidence is objected to on one ground in the trial court and admitted over that objection, other grounds raised for the first time on appeal are waived.’ ” ¶ 120 , ( , ); , (finding failure to object to an offer of evidence waives any complaint on appeal absent fundamental error).

452 n. 9, , 1147 n. 9 (2004).

Because we presume the court knew and correctly followed the law in conducting the bench trial, , we find the evidence was sufficient to support Henry's present conviction.

see also Scott, 437 U.S. at 90-91 (“venerable principle of 7 For this reason, we are not persuaded by Szpyrka’s characterization of the state’s petition for review as a cross-appeal requesting the plea be vacated.

Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 340, ¶44 , 111 P.3d at 382 ; ¶ 111 , 94 P,3d 1119, 1148 (2004); State v. Leyvas, 221 Áriz.

n. 9, ¶ 101 , 94 * n. 9 (2004) (failure to develop argument on appeal usually results in abandonment and waiver of issue).