Cited by

mate interest in counteracting the mitigating evidence which the defendant is entitled to put in, by reminding the sentencer that just as the murderer should be considered as an individual, so too the victim is an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society and in particular to his family.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825 (1991) (citation modified); –41, ¶ 111 (2006) (citation modified) (concluding victim impact “statements are relevant to the issue of the harm caused by the

cerns went “to the weight of the evidence,” and as to the “contextual argument, [Rodriguez could] put it in whatever context he want[ed] when he present[ed] his case.” The video clip was then admitted and played for the jury.3 A. Voluntariness Inquiry ¶10 “To be admissible, a statement must be voluntary, not obtained by coercion or improper inducement.”

¶ 105 (2006) (While a disparity in sentences between co-defendants can be a mitigating circumstance, “[o]nly the unexplained disparity is significant.”); (When a disparity in sentences results from an appropriate plea agreement, disparity is not mitigating.); State v. Sc

¶ 40 (2006) (cleaned up).

is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 65 (2006) (citation omitted).

¶ 42 (2006) (citation omitted).

¶ 65 (2006) (cleaned up).

“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 65 (2006) (cleaned up).

As a result, in the absence of a broader doctrine of cumulative trial error, it seems that we have inadvertently invited every purported error that goes without objection at trial to be clothed on appeal in the often ill-fitting garb of cumulative prosecutorial error.

¶ 65 (2006) (cleaned up).

4 STATE v. MCKINLEY Decision of the Court “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 65 (2006) (cleaned up).

¶27 Bachler next contends that his statements were involuntary because the interviewing detective suggested that “an admission would result in leniency in charging” and “in the ultimate punishment, which was reasonably perceived to be death.” “Promises of benefits or leniency, whether direct or implied, even if only slight in value, are impermissibly coercive.” ¶ 30 (2006).

¶53 “A conviction will be reversed for insufficient evidence only if it is not supported by substantial evidence.” -34, ¶ 65 (2006).

A challenge to a judge’s impartiality may not rest on “mere speculation, suspicion, apprehension, or imagination” but must be grounded in “concrete facts and specific allegations.” ¶ 37 (2006) (quotation and citation omitted).

A. Mia’s Statements at the Scene ¶14 We typically review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 42 (2006), but when a claim is not raised in the trial court, we will not reverse unless the court committed fundamental, prejudicial error, ¶ 12 (2018).

DISCUSSION ¶7 “To be admissible, a statement must be voluntary, not obtained by coercion or improper inducement.” ¶ 30 (2006).

¶ 115 (2006) (holding that superior court did not abuse its discretion when allowing admission of in-life photographs because they were “benign” when compared to post-mortem photographs).

¶ 65 (2006) (cleaned up).