Cited by

¶ 17 Moreover, our supreme court considered a similar argument made by a

See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27 (instructions may not comment on the evidence); ¶ 66, (same).

To show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, “the defendant must show purposeful discrimination that had a discriminatory effect on him and in his particular case.” ¶ 143, (citing McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292 (1987)).

When reviewing such claims, this Court considers whether “the cumulative effect of the incidents shows that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and ‘did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.’” ¶ 155, (quoting Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 80 ¶ 31, 969 P.2d at 1192).

We review admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 19, and issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation de novo, ¶ 89

t of killing “at the time he was doing it.” ¶90 In reviewing whether a jury has abused its discretion in finding an aggravating factor, we “review[] the record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” 218 ¶ 93

“Prosecutorial misconduct is harmless error if we can find beyond a reasonable doubt it did 18 not contribute to or affect the verdict.” State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, 228 ¶ 152, (internal quotation omitted).6 ¶39 In deciding whether an argument is misconduct, we “consider two factors: (1) whether the prosecutor’s statements called

¶ 13 , (citations omitted).

We have also cautioned that “a prosecutor cannot attack the expert with non-evidence, using irrelevant, insulting cross-examination and baseless argument designed to mislead the jury.” ¶ 161, (quoting Zawada, 208 Ariz. at 237 ¶ 14, 92 P.3d at 867).

Clear and convincing evidence creates a high probability that a proposition is true, ¶ 75 , , but need not establish that it is certainly or unambiguously true

P. 15.1(b), 15.2(c); -09, ¶¶ 32-40 , -84 (2006) (discussing State’s disclosure obligations).

(claims concerning constitutionality of statutes reviewed de novo); , (interpretation of statute question of law subject to de novo review).

Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., (“Typically, the word „including‟ is „not one of all- embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.‟”).

¶ 89 , (citation omitted).

8 ¶¶ 34-35 , (stating questions as part of an interrogation “were admissible at least for the limited purpose of showing the context of the interrogation”); -14, ¶¶ 69-70 , -89 (2006).

“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, [we review] the record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding.” ¶ 93

403; ¶ 59, (reviewing Rule 403 ruling for abuse of discretion).

We determine “whether substantial 15 evidence supports the jury’s finding, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” ¶ 93, 5 Substantial evidence is “proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”