Cited by

We review the admission of other act evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2013), and will uphold a decision if there is “any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.” ¶ 77 (2007) ().

We review “each instance of alleged misconduct, and the standard of review depends upon whether [the defendant] objected.” ¶47 (2007).

¶ 51 (2007) ( ¶ 59 (1998)).

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

[he] cannot make arguments that appeal to the fears or passions of the jury.” ¶ 58 (2007).

¶30 “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) (internal quotation omitted).

¶21 To establish prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show the misconduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process,” and prove the misconduct was “so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” ¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 26 (1998)).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36 (2011) ( ¶ 77 (2007)).

“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) ( ¶ 26 (1998)).

See, –88, ¶ 8 (2015); ¶ 9 (2010); ¶ 34 (2007).

to challenge the jury’s decision with regard to either the aggravating factors or the imposition of the death sentence.” ¶¶ 75–76 (2007); see also A.R.S.

We will affirm the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstances “if there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it,” ¶ 77 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), and uphold the jury’s imposition of the death sentence “so long as any reasonable jury could have concluded that the mitigation established by the defendant was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency,” id.

“Even if the prosecutor’s comments were improper, the judge’s instructions negated their effect.” ¶ 55 (2007).

¶ 35 (quoting State v. Morris , , ¶ 47, ).

¶ 71 n.8 (2007) (appellant cannot establish prejudice from exhibits never admitted into evidence).

¶ 51 (2007) (internal quotation omitted).

¶53 Here, the photographs were relevant “to show the nature and location of the fatal injur[ies], to help determine the degree or atrociousness of the crime, to corroborate state witnesses, to illustrate or explain testimony, and to corroborate the state’s theory of how and why the homicide was committed.” ¶ 70 (2007) (quoting Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 288); see also Anderson II, 210 Ariz. at 340 ¶ 40 (stating the autopsy photographs were relevant to show the “fact and cause of death”).

State v. Morris , , 340 ¶¶ 75-76, , 219 (2007) ; accord § 13-756(A).