Cited by

To establish especial cruelty, “the state must prove that ‘the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to 15 death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.’” ¶ 97, 250 P.3d.

“Although a connection between a defendant’s proffered mitigation and the crime is not required, the state may fairly argue that the lack of a nexus to the crime diminishes the weight to be given alleged mitigation.” ¶ 91, (internal quotation omitted).

We review the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 43, and will not reverse unless misconduct occurred and there is a reasonable likelihood it could have affected the jury’s verdict and denied Patterson a fair trial, ¶ 84

Subject to overarching due process considerations, any evidence that meets § 13-752(G)’s criterion is admissible, regardless of whether the evidence was admissible at a prior stage of the trial.” ¶ 15, (internal citation omitted).

7 ¶16 A potential juror may not be struck for cause merely because he “voiced general objections to the death penalty.” State v. Prince (Prince II), ¶ 27, (quoting Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 522).

The jury was entitled to give diminished mitigating weight to Nelson’s childhood because he was thirty-five years old when he killed Amber, which lessens “the impact of his dysfunctional childhood on his conduct.” ¶ 111

-28 ¶¶ 21-25, -57 (2011); Garcia, 224 Ariz. at 17 ¶ 71, 226 P.3d at 386.