Cited by

-28, ¶¶ 32-33 (2006) (rejecting the defendant’s claim of error that “presume[d] the truth of his version of events, despite contrary testimony by the detectives”).

(citations omitted); ¶ 30 (2006) ("To be admissible, a [defendant's] statement must be voluntary, not obtained by coercion or improper inducement.").

¶ 61 (2006) (citing Laird for the principle that “[a]bsent fundamental error, a defendant cannot complain if the court fails .

See, ¶ 15 (2009); ¶ 42 (2006); ¶ 15 (2006).

¶ 17 (2011) (cross-examination); ¶ 42 (2006) (generally).

Although a limiting instruction may have been appropriate under these circumstances, “[a]bsent fundamental error, a defendant cannot complain if the court fails to sua sponte give limiting instructions.” ¶ 61 (2006).

¶ 120 (2006) (“Mental anguish is established if the victim experienced significant uncertainty as to her ultimate fate or if the victim was aware of a loved one’s suffering.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); ¶ 45 (1998) (noting that mental anguish “may also include knowledge

¶ 42 (2006) ( ¶ 41 (2003)).

¶39 Further, as we have recognized, Appellant did not request a Rule 404(b) limiting jury instruction, and the trial court was under no duty to sua sponte give one.10 ¶ 61 (2006) (stating that, absent fundamental error, a defendant may not complain if the trial court fails to sua sponte provide limiting instructions)11; (“It has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that unless an objection is interposed to an instruction

¶29 “The constitutional right to a fair trial includes the right to a fair and impartial judge.” ¶ 35 (2006).