Cited by

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).

Id.; Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144, ¶¶ 29, 31; ¶ 145 (2004).

¶29 “Whether to preclude or limit a witness’s testimony lies within the discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 135 (2004).

¶ 93 (2004) (“We will not disturb the trial court’s selection of the jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen.” (citation omitted)).

Defense counsel did not object once the prosecutor actually made these statements, e.g., that Lewis did not cooperate with the DUI investigation because “he knew his level of impairment,” cooperation “would not exonerate him” but “it would convict him,” and sobriety testing “wouldn’t work in his favor.” ¶ 179 (2004) (finding a failure to make a contemporaneous objection to prosecutor’s comments limited court’s review “to one for fundamental error only”); -35, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (explaining to prese

See State v. Moody, 7 HARIANTO, et al. v. STATE, et al. Decision of the Court ¶ 101 n.9 (2004) (“In the ‘fact’ section of his brief, [the defendant] also mentioned [a theory], but he made no argument regarding it.

“[O]ne who knows that his conversation may be overheard and makes no effort to safeguard against interception may waive a claim of confidentiality.” ¶ 79 (2004).

See Logan, 200 Ariz. at 566 ¶ 11; ¶ 20, 344 ¶¶ 66–67 (2005) (finding defendant invited error by specifically requesting erroneous jury instructions and verdict forms); ¶ 111 (2004) (finding a party invited error where he elicited the testimony in question).

¶ 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.”’); ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (determining that wife abandoned and wa

¶ 53 (2004) (“We presume that a court is aware of the relevant law and applies it correctly in arriving at its rulings.”); State Nat.

¶ 48 (2004) (“We presume that a court is aware of the relevant law and applied it correctly in arriving at its ruling.”).