Cited by

613(b); ¶ 41 (2013); –77 (1982); cf. Ariz. R. Evid.

If the defendant makes specific allegations, “the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” ¶ 31 (2013).

If the defendant’s allegations are specific, “the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” ¶ 31 (2013).

¶ 42 (2013) (explaining that “[a]n offer of proof is critical because it permits the trial judge to reevaluate his decision in light of the actual evidence to be offered, .

See State v. (Robert) Hernandez, ¶ 57 (2013) (“While bound, [the victim] would have been uncertain as to her fate, and thus suffered the requisite mental anguish necessary for the ‘especially cruel’ finding required by § 13-751(F)(6).” (internal citation omitted)); ¶ 88 (2013) (“[T]hat [the victim] was bound s

¶ 42 (2013) (affirming a judgment where the party did not make an offer of proof to show how the evidence conflicted with the witness’s testimony).

An offer of proof permits “the trial judge to reevaluate [a] decision in light of the actual evidence to be offered, and to permit the reviewing court to determine if the exclusion affected the substantial rights of the party offering it.” ¶ 42 (2013) (citation and alteration omitted).

“To satisfy this burden, the defendant must present evidence of a ‘severe and pervasive conflict with 4 STATE v. BALLI Decision of the Court his attorney or evidence that he had such minimal contact with the attorney that meaningful communication was not possible.’” ¶ 15 (2013) (quoting United States v. Lott, 310 F.3d 1231, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002)).

¶ 37 (2013) ("The lack of an offer of proof forecloses [appellant's] argument on appeal.").

801(d)(1)(A); ¶ 41 (2013) ("As a preliminary matter, however, the court must be persuaded that the statements are indeed inconsistent.") (citation omitted); (affirming "the long established rule that in order for a prior 4

A defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to counsel “if either an irreconcilable conflict or a completely fractured relationship between counsel and the accused exists.” ¶ 12 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See State v. Hernandez , , ¶¶ 42-44, ("An offer of proof is critical because it permits 'the trial judge to reevaluate his decision in light of the actual evidence to be offered, ...

¶ 42-43 (2013) (citation and quotation omitted) (citing Ariz. R. Evid.

4 STATE v. ALLIANCE Decision of the Court ¶ 37 (2013) (lack of an offer of proof forecloses argument on appeal).

To demonstrate irreconcilable conflict, “the defendant must present evidence of a ‘severe and pervasive conflict with the attorney or evidence that he had such minimal contact with the attorney that meaningful communication was not possible.’” ¶ 15 (2013).

¶ 47 (2013) (“A prior inconsistent statement by a witness subject to cross-examination is not hearsay.”).

¶ 53 (2013) (citations omitted).6 ¶15 As outlined above, see supra ¶¶ 10-12, a reasonable fact-finder could have inferred that Appellant intentionally aided or assisted in killing Flaco and his men, even if his sole motivation for doing so was duress.