Cited by

“What Does Mitigation Mean To You?” ¶104 McCauley sought to ask in voir dire, “What does mitigation mean to you?” McCauley claims the trial court erred in denying the request

¶ 25 (2012) (concluding that jury instructions and the prosecutor’s subsequent correction of error cured a misstatement of law).

¶ 25 (App. 2012) (mistrial not required when prosecutor corrected a misstatement of the law and the superior court correctly instructed jurors).

¶9 “When the State alleges a non-capital sentencing aggravator such as dangerousness, the aggravator should not be mentioned in jury instructions or otherwise during the guilt phase of the trial.” ¶ 29 (2012) (citation omitted).

this principle does not permit the defendant to “ask a juror to speculate or precommit on how that juror might vote based on any particular facts,” Smith, 215 Ariz. at 231 ¶ 42 (internal quotation marks omitted), nor does it allow the defendant to ask questions regarding specific aggravating circumstances or “what types of evidence the [jury] will consider to be mitigating,” ¶ 8 (2012) (quoting Glassel, 211 Ariz. at 47 ¶ 44).

¶¶ 22-24 (2012) (finding no abuse of discretion in allowing the prosecutor to use a PowerPoint presentation disclosed the day of closing argument).

¶35 Although we generally review a trial court's voir dire rulings for abuse of discretion, State v. Patterson , , 273 ¶ 5, , 4 (2012), fundamental error review applies to Bush's constitutional claims because he did not raise them at trial, State v. Henderson , , 567 ¶ 19, , 607 (2005) (noting that "[a] defendant who fails to object at trial forfeits the right to obtain appellate relief exce

P., State v. Patterson , , and State v. Larin , , the state argued that "Arizona law supports the Dangerousness finding being made separately, and specifically after, the jury renders its verdict."

State v. Patterson , , ¶ 25

¶ 25 (2012) (noting court instructions may help cure error resulting from prosecutor’s misstatement of law).

See Newell, 212 Ariz. at 403 ¶¶ 67–68, 132 P.3d at 847 (holding that jury instructions stating that closing arguments are not evidence negated improper comments of prosecutor); ¶ 25, (finding prosecutor’s initial misstatement of the law cured by jury instructions that properly stated the law).

5 STATE V. BURNS Opinion of the Court abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5

P., P.3d 1 (2012), the state contends the court “was required to withhold the dangerous nature enhancements from the jury until the aggravation phase of trial.” The state further maintains that the RAJI “appear[s] to misstate the law” and that “the trial court was required to disregard the recommended instruction