Cited by

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)).

3 STATE v. MYERS Decision of the Court that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” ¶ 46, ( ¶ 26, ).