Cited by

¶ 30 (2007); (“The trial court is vested with great discretion in the conduct and control of closing argument and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”).

at 83 ¶ 38 ( ¶ 97 63 STATE V. ALLEN Opinion of the Court (2005)); see also State v. Pandeli (Pandeli I), ¶ 32 (2007) (approving a prosecutor’s comments because “the State never told jurors that they could not consider mitigation unrelated to the crime; it merely suggested that such mitigation was entitled to minimal weight”).

¶ 39 (2010) (“[T]he state may fairly argue that the lack of a nexus to the crime diminishes the weight to be given alleged mitigation.”); State v. Pandeli (Pandeli II), ¶ 32 (2007) (“[T]he State never told jurors that they could not consider mitigation unrelated to the crime; it merely suggested that such mitigation was entitled to minimal weight.”); Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 350 ¶ 97 (“Once the jury has heard all of the defendant’s mitigation evidence, there is no constitutional p

§§ 13-751(G) and -752(G) permit jurors to hear evidence relating to circumstances of the crime and the defendant’s character.”); ¶¶ 41–42 (2007) (allowing any evidence demonstrating the defendant should not be shown leniency).

See, ¶¶ 48–50 (2007) (finding that defendant invited error where he responded to judge’s question about why prosecution witness’ testimony was admissible and then proffered reasons to the court supporting his conclusion).

See, –09 ¶¶ 74–75 (2013); –33 ¶¶ 48–54 (2011); Gallardo, 225 Ariz. at 566 ¶¶ 21–23; –38 ¶ 27 (2010); State v. Pandeli (“Pandeli III”), –24 ¶¶ 20–21 (2007).

¶ 50 (2007) (declining to consider an alleged error in the admission of evidence where the defendant “explicitly stated that he did not” object to its admissibility) ( ¶ 111 (2004)).

¶ 50 (2007) (holding defendant invited error regarding admission of other-act evidence when the trial court asked defense counsel if he objected to the evidence and counsel responded he did not).

¶ 50 (2007) (holding defendant invited error regarding admission of other act evidence when the trial court asked defense counsel if he objected to the evidence and counsel responded he did not); –66 ¶ 9 (2001) (declining to address an issue raised as a result of invited

Any connection or lack of connection may impact the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence.” ¶ 33 (2007) (finding any potential error cured when the jury instructions informed the jurors that they should consider and give effect to all the mitigation evidence).

¶ 50 (2007) (finding invited error because the trial court asked defense counsel whether he “objected to the child molestation testimony and he explicitly stated that he did not”).

¶ 61 (2013) (“Parker’s stipulation to admit the videotaped interviews precludes him from asserting on appeal that their admission was error.”); ¶ 50 (2007) (defense counsel invited error in admission of evidence by explicitly stating that he did not object and by agreeing it was other act evidence).

¶ 72 (2007) (recognizing that establishing a nexus between mitigating factors and the crime, though not required, may affect the quality and strength of the mitigation).

¶ 50 (2007) (citation and quotation omitted) (stating “a defendant who invited error at trial may not then assign the same as error on appeal”); -37, ¶ 24 (2000) (citation omitted) (“Even assuming a Miranda violation, non-reference to the statements at trial renders defendant’

State v. Pandeli (Pandeli IV), ¶ 85

¶ 50 (2007) (applying the invited error doctrine when defense counsel failed to object to evidence offered by the state and affirmatively agreed the evidence was admissible).

¶ 50, (discussing the invited error doctrine).

drug abuse to the crime or to his mental functioning’ when the murder occurred.” Garcia, 224 Ariz. at 22 ¶ 104, 226 P.3d at 391 ( ¶ 75, ).