Cited by

In some of these cases, the supreme court issued broad pronouncements that manslaughter instructions “are required when supported by the evidence,” ¶ 23 (2011), and “[a]n accused murderer is entitled to an instruction on .

3 STATE v. TUPA Decision of the Court ¶11 “We review limitations on the scope of cross-examination for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 17 (2011).

See, –92 ¶¶ 95–98 (2020) (reviewing trial court’s failure to comply with Rule 19.1(d) for fundamental error); –05 ¶¶ 7–12 (2011) (reviewing trial court’s failure to comply with A.R.S.

“We review limitations on the scope of cross-examination for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 17 (2011).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36 (2011) ( ¶ 77 (2007)).

¶ 8 (2011) (-23 (1994)); see A.R.S.

¶ 17 (2011) (cross-examination); ¶ 42 (2006) (generally).

“We review limitations on the scope of cross- examination for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 17 (2011).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, (quoting Morris, 215 Ariz. at 341 ¶ 77, 160 P.3d at 220).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, (quoting Morris, 215 Ariz. at 341 ¶ 77, 160 P.3d at 220).

See, e.g., Gipson, 229 Ariz. at 485 ¶ 4, 487 ¶ 17, 277 P.3d at 190, 192 (upholding manslaughter conviction in a first-degree murder trial when trial judge sua sponte instructed jury on provocation manslaughter over both parties’ objections); ¶ 23, (“In a first degree murder trial, instructions for second degree murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide are required when supported by the evidence.”); State v. Noleen, 142 5 STATE V. LUA

A finding of aggravating circumstances is not an abuse of discretion if “’there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, ( ¶ 77, ).

We will not find “an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain [the findings and sentences].’” ¶36, ( ¶ 77, ).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, ( ¶ 77, ).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, ( ¶ 77, ).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, (quoting Morris, 215 Ariz. at 341 ¶ 77, 160 P.3d at 220).

The trier of fact did not abuse its discretion if “there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.” ¶ 36

y protected right[] to provide the jury with the mitigating evidence,” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 393 (2000), he may waive that right even if mitigating evidence exists, see Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 476 (2007); accord State v. Hausner, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶¶ 121-22, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (2012); -08 ¶¶ 28-34, - 37 (2011).

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, ( ¶ 77, ).

The State correctly notes that the Supreme Court has never imposed an “informed and knowing” requirement upon a defendant’s decision to waive the presentation of mitigation, see Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 47, but this Court has consistently required a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of this important constitutional right, see, ¶ 34, (affirming capital sentence imposed after trial court ordered competency evaluation and found defendant knowingly and intelligently 57 waived right to present

“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, ( ¶ 77, ).