Cited by

¶26 “[U]sing a peremptory strike to exclude a potential juror solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ¶ 51 (2006) (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986)).

ding an article that caused them to no longer be concerned about “the children.” Additionally, prior to deliberations, the court instructed the jury as follows: “If the court sustained an objection to a lawyer’s question, you must disregard it and any answer given.” We presume the jury followed the instruction and did not consider the answer suggesting Jordan was untruthful.3 ¶ 69 (2006).

Prosecutorial misconduct occurs where the prosecutor: (1) “places the prestige of the government behind its evidence,” or (2) “suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the evidence.” ¶ 62 (2006) ().

See Phillips, 208 Ariz. at 286 ¶ 20; ¶¶ 79–80 (2006); –69 ¶ 74 (2005).

at 336-37, ¶ 55 ( ¶¶ 67-68 (2006)).

8 STATE v. PAYAN Decision of the Court ¶25 “[U]sing a peremptory strike to exclude a potential juror solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ¶ 51 (2006) (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986)).

¶ 68 (2006) ("We presume that the jurors followed the court's instructions.").

On review, we will defer to any factual finding unless clearly erroneous, , and will uphold any remedy imposed absent a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion, cf. Walker, 490 F.3d at 1294 ; , (denial of mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct not disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion).

See, ¶ 68, see also Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 342 ¶ 50, 111 P.3d at 384 (noting that a misstatement of the law can be cured by court’s instruction that attorney arguments are not evidence).