Cited by

that an officer’s motive invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); ¶ 39 (2012) (to same effect).

To pass constitutional muster, aggravators must “not apply to every defendant convicted of a murder, but only to a subclass, and the aggravating circumstance may not be overly vague.” ¶ 99 (2012) (citing Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 972 (1994)).

We review the admission of the first two statements for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 58 (2012), but we review admission of the third statement for fundamental error because Aston never objected at trial, ¶ 20 (2005).

“When the State seeks to admit evidence of other acts of the defendant, it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other acts” and the acts “must be offered for a proper purpose.” ¶ 69 (2012) ().

See State 3 ¶ 41 (2012) (stating the Arizona Constitution affords individuals greater protection than the United States Constitution when officers attempt to physically intrude into a home).

at 87 ¶ 8 ( ¶ 23 (2012)).

“Substantial evidence is that which ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 63 (2018) ( ¶ 50 (2012)).

¶8 On appeal, this court reviews a superior court’s “decision to admit evidence of other acts for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 68 (2012), recognizing an admissibility “ruling will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion,”

¶ 43 (2003) (citation omitted).

¶ 99 (2012) (citing Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 972 (1994)).

Rather, we review “the evidence presented at trial only to determine if substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” ¶ 50 (2012) ( ¶ 6 (2005)).

¶63 Substantial evidence is that which “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 50 (2012).

" State v. Valenzuela , , ¶ 3, ( Valenzuela II ), quoting State v. Hausner , , ¶ 23

In addition, the ABA Guidelines are merely “guidelines and not requirements.” ¶ 125 (2012); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (stating that the ABA Guidelines are “only guides”).

As he walked past the Dodge, the sergeant smelled “a faint odor of 1 In reviewing the denial of Payan’s motion to suppress, we consider only “evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” ¶ 23 (2012).

¶16 In rejecting Hidalgo’s argument, app. at 89, app. at 633 (2012) (noting similar argument in appendix listing claims defendant sought to preserve for federal review).

Factual and Procedural Background ¶ 2 “In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress, we consider only ‘evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.’”

¶17 “A defendant may waive mitigation if he is competent and makes the decision knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” ¶ 116, ¶ 240