Cited by

¶ 33 (2008) (harmless error analysis applies to Confrontation Clause violations); 4 IN RE ISMAEL N. Decision of the Court ¶ 132 (2004) (error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if appellate court concludes error did not affect verdict).

.” n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (citation omitted).

n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (claims not raised in an opening brief are waived).

We deny relief because “[m]erely mentioning an argument is not enough.” n.9, ¶ 101 (2004).

¶ 62 (2004) ( ¶ 14 (2002), ¶ 21 (2004)).

¶ 101, n.9 (2004) ("Merely mentioning an argument is not enough .

Id.; ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (holding that failure to support arguments with legal authority may constitute waiver and abandonment of that claim) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).

P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi); n.9 , , 1147 n.9 (2004) ("Merely mentioning an argument is not enough.”).

We review claimed double jeopardy violations de novo, ¶ 18 , but we review a court’s decision to grant a mistrial and its ruling on manifest necessity for an abuse of discretion.

This Court reviews a trial court’s decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion, and reviews “constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.” ¶ 62

Because Caravetta failed arguments with legal authority may constitute waiver and abandonment of that claim) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).

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

.” n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (citation omitted).

In other words, Zuluaga must show “not only that the voir dire examination was inadequate, but also that, as a result of the inadequate questioning, the jury selected was not fair, unbiased, and impartial.” Naranjo, , 321 P.3d at 406

¶ 111, (defendant invites error by asking a leading question and may not assign the error on appeal) (citation omitted).

n.9, ¶ 101 (2004); see also State Farm Mut.

¶ 75 (2004) (appellate 1 At the same time, the State successfully moved to dismiss the notice of intent to seek the death penalty.