Cited by

–53 ¶ 67– 68, –01 (2013) (rejecting instruction that defendant would “never be eligible to be released from prison for any reason for the rest of his life” because it “referred more broadly to any form of release or commutation of sentence”).

“To prove premeditation, the state must establish actual reflection and more than mere passage of time, but it may do so with all the circumstantial evidence at its disposal in a case.” ¶ 60, (internal quotation marks omitted).

See Martinez, 218 Ariz. at 434 ¶¶ 59–62, 189 P.3d at 361 (noting that the Supreme Court has “never required de novo review of death sentences”); ¶ 71, Rose, 231 Ariz. at 515 ¶ 71, 297 P.3d at 921.

We review the trial court’s ruling permitting this testimony for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 14, which can include an error of law, ¶ 12

We review the trial court’s ruling permitting this testimony for an abuse of discretion, , 544 ¶ 14, which can include an error of law, , 3 ¶ 12

¶¶ 52, 54, (concluding court did not err by excluding evidence of voluntary intoxication on the issue of premeditation).

Grell III, ¶¶ 5, 7, 15, 34 , 291 P.3d at 351-52, 353, 356-57 ; ¶¶ 34-36 , (“[although the DSM-IV defines impairments in adaptive functioning based on deficits in two areas,” that definition “is not the same as the statutory definition,” which, “by contrast, ‘requires an overall assessment of the defendant’s ability to meet society’s expectations of him’”