Cited by

We review a trial court's decision to give an instruction, over objection, for an abuse of discretion, -64, ¶ 51 (2009), but we review constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 4 (2017).

See, ¶ 157 (2013); ¶ 89 (2009); ¶ 141 (2009).

“When a defendant objects to an alleged act of prosecutorial misconduct, we review the issue for harmless error; when a defendant fails to object, we engage in fundamental error review.” ¶ 125 (2009).

P. 32.1(a) (conviction obtained in violation of United States or Arizona Constitution); ¶ 115 (2009) (“[J]uror misconduct warrants a new trial [only] if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” (alteration in original) ()); ¶ 49 (2011).

court’s determination regarding relevance.” ¶ 122 (2009).

“We review a court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 44 (App. 2014) (-64, ¶ 51 (2009)), and find no error here.

We review de novo whether jury instructions correctly state the law, ¶ 5 (App. 2013), finding reversible error only if, taken as a whole, the instruction would mislead the jurors, ¶ 81 (2009) (citation omitted).

§§ 23-362, -363, -364; (“When a word in a statute is undefined, courts apply the ordinary meaning of the term.”).

Watson, (court must review “all the records”), they are entitled to little or no weight, ¶ 82 (2010) (“minor participation” not established in killings when defendant involved in planning and execution of robbery and knew co-defendant prepared to kill, despite not being shooter and not intending victims harm); ¶ 150 (2009) (evidence of remorse entitled to little weight “when the defendant denies 23 STATE v. HEDLUND JUDGE VÁSQUEZ, Dissenting Sole Aggravator: Pecuniary Gain ¶60 The majority stat

¶ 22 (2009); ¶ 14 (App. 2007).

¶ 7 (App. 2011); ¶¶ 49-50 (2009).

First, we review for an abuse of discretion both the superior court’s management of its docket, as well as its rulings on the admission of evidence, ¶ 66 (2009).