Cited by

¶15 To secure reversal for prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show the prosecutor’s actions were improper and “a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying the defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145 (2004).

¶29 Although "[a]ttorneys, including prosecutors in criminal cases, are given wide latitude in their closing arguments," State v. Moody , , ¶ 154, (quoting State v. Comer , , 426, , 346 (1990) ), there are limitations.

¶ 3, n.1 (App. 2010) (finding waiver 3 SHORES v. DIAZ Decision of the Court of arguments that were raised in a reply brief but not advanced in the opening brief); ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) ("In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant's position on the issues raised.

See State v. Moody , , n.9, , 1147 (2004) (Appellant "must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth [the] appellant's position on the issues raised.

Because Aleman's contentions are not sufficiently developed, she has waived her claims on appeal.1 ¶ 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.

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); ¶ 101 n.9 (2004) (explaining opening briefs that fail to present significant arguments supported by authority usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that argument).

Sec., ¶ 14 n.6 (App. 2011) (recognizing that the failure to develop an argument on appeal results in abandonment and waiver of the issue) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).

“We review a trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 197 (2004).

the jury selected was not fair, unbiased, and impartial.” ¶ 95 (2004); see also Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. at 271 ¶¶ 33–34 (determining that despite initial time limit, trial court posed appropriate follow-up questions to jurors and defendant failed to demonstrate that the seated jury “was not fair, unbiased, and impartial”).

at 271 ¶ 33 (internal quotation marks omitted) ( ¶ 95 (2004)).

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 [the] defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145 (2004) (citation omitted).

¶20 "We review a trial court's decisions regarding the use and content of jury questionnaires for abuse of discretion," State v. Naranjo , , 241 ¶ 24, , 406 (2014), and "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," State v. Moody , , 451 ¶ 93, , 1146 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Walden , , 607, , 986 (1995) ).

n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (finding waiver because the defendant “[m]erely mention[ed] an argument”); ¶ 24 (App. 2015) (finding an argument waived because the defendant “d[id] not present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth his position” (internal quotation

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 (2004) (citation omitted).

" State v. Moody , , ¶ 22, quoting Nalbandian v. Superior Court , , 130, , 981 (App. 1989).

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

This right extends to “all critical stages of the criminal process.” Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 80–81 (2004); ¶ 65 (2004).

n.9 ¶ 101 (2004) (failure to present significant arguments supported by authority in an opening brief waives the issue).

on which the appellant relies.”); ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”) (); ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (issue waived because defendant fail

n.9 ¶ 101 (2004) (failure to present significant arguments, supported by authority in an opening brief waives an issue).

¶ 48 (2004) (court entitled to rely on record supporting competency adjudication unless defendant presents reasonable ground for another competency hearing based on new facts) (-61 (1975)).