Cited by

¶ 24 (2011) (“Such cautionary instructions by the court generally cure any possible prejudice from argumentative comments during opening statements” and “[j]urors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.”).

State v. Aragón, ¶ 6 (2022) (instructions); ¶ 35 (2011) (questions).

We consider “only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and [view] the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling.” ¶ 11 (2011).

Similarly, the State should refrain from suggesting, absent supporting evidence, that an expert “colluded with the defense to fabricate” results or “reached conclusions 7 STATE v. WINSTON Decision of the Court merely for pecuniary gain.” ¶¶ 31–32 (2011).

See Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. at 216, ¶ 69; ¶ 24 (2011) (“Such cautionary instructions by the court generally cure any possible prejudice from argumentative comments during opening statements.”).

¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2010); ¶ 26 (2016) ( ¶ 11 (2011)).

“Although highly misleading statements might sometimes taint a trial, ‘cautionary instructions by the court generally cure any possible prejudice’ from statements by counsel because juries are presumed to follow the trial court’s instructions.” ¶ 24 (2013) ( ¶ 24 (2011)).

When a trial court instructs the jury that the statements made by the attorneys are not evidence, the instructions “generally cure any possible prejudice from argumentative comments during opening statements.” ¶¶ 23–24 (2011).

Because jurors are presumed to follow the court's instructions, ¶ 24 (2011), by convicting Mora of these crimes, the jurors necessarily found beyond a reasonable doubt the DCAC prerequisite that the victim was under 15 years of age.

See Newell, 212 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 68 (presuming the jury follows the court’s instructions); ¶¶ 23–24 (2011) (finding that a court’s cautionary instruction generally cures any possible prejudice in the context of argumentative comments during opening statements).

" State v. Manuel , , 9 ¶ 42, , 836 (2011) (quoting Morris , 215 Ariz. at 341 ¶ 77, 160 P.3d at 220 ).

¶ 24, (citation omitted).

he could leave the premises, was not in custody when questioned and therefore her statements were voluntary and “Miranda warnings were not required.” ¶14 “We review the denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, considering only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling.” ¶ 11 (2011) (internal citations omitted).

We review the denial of a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (2011), but review legal issues de novo.

¶ 11, (citation omitted).

¶ 12 (2015) ( ¶ 25 (2011)).