Cited by

ng issues in this case”;7 and, (3) the state “significantly delayed resolution” of Drake’s post-conviction relief proceeding without “any sound reason.” ¶33 “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ( ).

STATE V. ROMERO Opinion of the Court [errors] shows that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.’” (alterations in original) ( ¶ 46 (2010))); ¶ 68 (2022); ¶ 67 (2007); ¶ 31 (1998).

We therefore use the term “prosecutorial error” when referring to all of McCauley’s claims in Part A. ¶13 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, “a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s [error] so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Murray, 250 Ariz. at 548 ¶ 13 ( ¶ 46 (2007)).

¶20 Prosecutors may not make arguments that “appeal to the fears or passions of the jury” by playing on their “sympathy for the victims and fears of the defendant.” ¶ 58 (2007).

17 ¶ 47 (2007) ( ¶ 155 (2006)) (cleaned up).

by “asking argumentative questions that impugned the integrity of a defense expert; attempting to mislead the jury; misstating the evidence in closing; and vouching.” “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” ¶ 46 (2007) (citation omitted); ¶ 13 (2021).

While the State invited the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of Hill — an improper argument — it did not improperly “appeal to the fears or passions of the jury.” ¶ 58 (2007); (holding “golden rule” arguments are improper).

¶ 58 (2007) (“A prosecutor has wide latitude in presenting arguments to the jury.”).

To secure relief for prosecutorial error, Strickland must show the error “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” State v. Murray, 250 5 STATE v. STRICKLAND Decision of the Court Ariz. 543, 548 ¶ 13 (2021) ( ¶ 46 (2007)).

Under that standard, “we uphold a decision if there is ‘any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 28 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 77 (2007)).

¶ 44 (2007) (“An error is harmless if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” (cleaned up)).

“Prosecutors have ‘wide latitude’ in presenting their arguments to the jury.” ¶ 51 (2007) ( ¶ 37 (2000)).

¶ 46 (2007) (quotation omitted).

¶11 We review a ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 29 (2004), and will uphold a court’s exercise of discretion if it is reasonably supported by the record, ¶ 77 (2007).

In exercising their “wide latitude” during closing arguments, prosecutors may argue “all reasonable inferences from the evidence” provided they do not “make insinuations that are not supported by the evidence” or “make arguments that appeal to the fears or passions of the jury.” –37 ¶¶ 51, 58 (2007) (cleaned up).

To that end, a defendant must demonstrate that “(1) [error] exists and (2) ‘a reasonable likelihood exists that the [error] could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [the] defendant a fair trial.’” ¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 45 (2005)).

Prosecutorial Error ¶21 On appeal, Romero argues cumulative prosecutorial error deprived him of a fair trial.6 To entitle a defendant to relief, the prosecutor’s conduct must “so infect[] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ().

“Photographs of a victim’s body are always relevant because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” ¶ 70 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

(“An error is harmless if it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt 18 STATE v. JERALD Opinion of the Court that the error .

¶8 To prevail on a prosecutorial error claim, the defendant must show the prosecutor made an error that “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Murray, 250 Ariz. at 548, ¶ 13 ( ¶ 46 (2007)).

See Conley, 2 CA-CR 2021-0111, at *6, ¶ 31; -37, ¶ 55 (2007) (citing cases that hold trial court’s instructions cured improper closing argument).

Prosecutorial error occurs where the prosecutor’s conduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 26 (1998)).