Cited by

Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 140, ¶ 12; ¶ 20 (2007) (reviewing for fundamental error because the defendant “raised no objections at trial to the voir dire process”).

“Party admissions require no external indicia of reliability.” ¶ 41 (2007).

¶ 43 (rejecting challenge to accomplice liability, even when the State’s theory was that the defendant “acted alone,” given Garza’s blood was found on the passenger side of his car, suggesting that someone else drove the car away from the crime scene; the defense argued that this person committed the murders.).

801(d)(2)(A), with no reliability requirement, ¶ 41 (2007).

See, e.g., Smith, 250 Ariz. at 88 ¶ 71 (finding waiver of comparative analysis claim in similar circumstances); Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. at 272 ¶ 37 (same); ¶ 31 (2007) (defendant waives Batson challenges by failing to object at trial); Medina, 232 Ariz. at 405 ¶ 49 (same).

See, e.g., Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. at 558 ¶ 69; ¶ 81 (2007).

¶8 We review de novo the denial of a Rule 20 motion, ¶ 168 (2016), upholding the enhancement if substantial evidence supports it, -68, ¶ 52 (2007).

¶ 44 (2010) (noting that Arizona law “specifically requires the trier of fact to make Enmund/Tison findings in the aggravation phase.”) ( ¶ 46 (2007)).

¶ 39 (2007) (concluding the defendant’s statements demonstrated his consciousness of guilt, and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by any prejudice).

¶ 82 (2007) (“Age is of diminished significance in mitigation when the defendant is a major participant in the crime, especially when the defendant plans the crime in advance.”).

State v. Garza , , 64 ¶ 25, ,1014 (2007) ; see also State v. Parker , , 400 ¶ 21, , 63 (2013) ("We have repeatedly rejected invitations to expand Morgan 's holding.").

¶ 20 (2005); ¶ 20 (2007) (reviewing a defendant’s challenges to the voir dire process, raised for the first time on appeal, for fundamental error).

“Prosecutorial vouching occurs ‘when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness,’ or ‘where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.’” ¶ 23, ( –90, ¶¶ 9-12, -43 (2010)).

confessed to “possession” of the cellphone, dropping it in a cup, and leaving it in “Acosta’s house” when he saw the “C.O.s walking in with gloves.” The superior court ruled the letter was inadmissible under Arizona Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) because “there was no external evidence that clearly indicated the trustworthiness of the statements in the letter.” n.9, ¶ 41, n.9 (2007) (“[S]tatements against interest by unavailable non-party declarants, which are governed by Rule 804(b)(3), are admissi

at 159, ¶ 31 ( ¶ 28 (2007)).

“Prosecutorial vouching occurs ‘when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness,’ or ‘where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.’” ¶ 23, ( -90, ¶¶ 9-12, -43 (2010)).

¶ 20, (stating that a defendant who raised no objections at trial to the voir dire process but later raises the argument on appeal is reviewed for fundamental error).

¶ 37 (2007) ( ¶ 42 (2006)).

See Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A); ¶ 41, (admitting defendant’s recorded conversation with a friend as a “party admission under Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A)”).