Cited by

(“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.” (alteration in Anthony) ()), (when court

¶ 41 (2008) (“find[ing] error harmless when the evidence against a defendant is so overwhelming that any reasonable jury could only have reached one conclusion”).

And the “State has the burden of convincing us that any error was harmless.” ¶ 39 (2008).

Before admitting evidence under Rule 404(b), the court “must find that there is clear and convincing proof both as to the commission of the other bad act and that the defendant committed the act.” ¶ 33 (2008) (citation omitted).

See Davis, 415 U.S. at 317; (“jury must ultimately determine whether the other act is proved”).

This standard of review “places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” (once defendant has shown error, burden shifts to state to prove error harmless); (state has burden of convincing appellate court that “guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error” ()).

¶57 To admit other act evidence, a trial court must first find “that there is clear and convincing proof both as to the commission of the other bad act and that the defendant committed the act.” ¶ 33 (2008) ().

¶ 41 (2008) (“We can find error harmless when the evidence against a defendant is so overwhelming that any reasonable jury could only have reached one conclusion.”).

“The inquiry is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” ¶ 39 (2008) (quoting Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588).

“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 39 (2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“We can find error harmless when the evidence against a defendant is so overwhelming that any reasonable jury could only have reached one conclusion.” ¶ 41 (2008).

¶ 33 (2008) (trial judges must find 2 STATE v. WORRELL Decision of the Court clear and convincing proof as to the commission of the other bad act and that the defendant committed the act).

“The State has the burden of convincing us that any error was harmless.” ¶ 39 (2008).

To find harmless error, we must be persuaded that the State has met its burden of establishing, “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 39 (2008) ().

¶ 41 (2008) (“We can find error harmless when the evidence against a defendant is so overwhelming that any reasonable jury could only have reached one conclusion.”); Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588–90 (erroneous admission of DNA evidence was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt).

Stated differently, for the many instances of prosecutorial misconduct to which Arias objected at trial, the State has met its burden of showing that “the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” ¶ 39 (2008) (internal quotations omitted).

The State may meet its burden if “the evidence against a defendant is so overwhelming that any reasonable jury could only have reached one conclusion.” ¶ 41 (2008).