Cited by

¶ 101 n.9 (2004) (“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough: In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.

¶ 121 (2004) (no fundamental error when the challenged evidence was cumulative to other properly admitted evidence).

We review the trial court’s admission of evidence of prior convictions and resulting sentencing order for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 3 (App. 2004) (prior convictions); ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (sentencing), as we do its sanction ruling for untimely disclosures, ¶ 114 (2004).

P. 11.2(a)(1), (c); ¶ 48 (2004) (“In determining whether reasonable grounds exist [for another competency hearing], a judge may rely, among other factors, on his own observations of the defendant’s demeanor and ability to answer questions.”).

¶21 “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial [error], 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 (2004) (citation omitted).

¶ 121 (2004) (holding no fundamental error when the challenged evidence was merely cumulative).

Co. of Ariz., ¶ 18 (App. 2007); ¶ 101 n.9 (2004).

DISCUSSION ¶10 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.” ¶ 126 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 101 n.9 (2004) (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.” ()).

¶ 193 (2004) ("Because of the defenses asserted and the facts placed before the jury in this case, we do not find the error fundamental.").

¶ 6 (App. 2013); ¶ 114 (2004) (“Whether to impose a sanction for late disclosure and which 10 STATE v. WOODS Decision of the Court sanction to impose are discretionary decisions left to the trial court; we will not disturb those d

To preserve a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, a party must move to preclude the evidence by either a motion or “a specific, contemporaneous objection to its admission.” ¶ 39 (2004).

ALYSIS I. Special Action Jurisdiction ¶16 Although a special action petition is not the exclusive way for a defendant to obtain appellate review of a double jeopardy claim, -12, ¶ 8 (App. 2006), it “is the appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain judicial appellate review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim,” ¶ 22 (2004) ().

Prosecutors have wide latitude in closing argument and may urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, ¶ 180 (2004), but such inferences must be reasonably supported by the evidence, ¶ 109 (2018).

n.9 (2004) (“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough .

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[.]” ¶ 145 (2004) (internal quotation omitted).

See ARCAP 13(a)(6); ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (observing that appellant is required “to provide ‘citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on[]’ [and] [f]ailure to do so can constitute abandonment and waiver of that claim.” ( ¶ 101 n.9 (2004)).

“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 (2004) (internal quotations omitted).