Cited by

¶ 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).

The misconduct must be “so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial,” rendering “the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 46 (2007) (citations omitted).

“A defendant is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury but only by one which is fair and impartial.” ¶ 40 (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).

That is, Francois must show that “(1) misconduct exists and (2) ‘a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [Francois] a fair trial.’” ¶ 46 (2007) (quoting State v. Anderson (Anderson II), ¶ 45 (2005)).

“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 citations omitted).

¶20 Fundamental error is “rare” and is an “error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19 (); ¶ 59 (2007).

“The misconduct must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” ¶ 46 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

I. Prosecutorial Misconduct ¶12 When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, we “evaluate each instance of alleged misconduct, and the standard of review depends upon whether [the defendant] objected.” ¶ 47 (2007).

¶ 47 (2007) ( ¶ 154 (2006)).

¶ 46 (2007) (quotation omitted).

¶ 70 (2007) (“Photographs of a victim’s body are always relevant because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); ¶ 18 (2006) (stating the same and adding that photos may be relevant “to show t

¶ 51 (2007) ( ¶ 37 (2000), and Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 85, ¶ 59).

¶6 “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).

¶ 46 (2007) (citation and internal punctuation omitted).

“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, ( ¶ 26, ).

“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 and internal punctuation omitted).

Section21-202(B)(3) requires the trial court to grant a person’s recusal request if ”[t]he prospective juror is not currently capable of understanding the English language.” ¶ 42, (holding that judges have broad discretion to excuse jurors from service).

“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).

¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 26 (1998)).