Cited by

–15, ¶¶ 34–37, 39 (2015).

5 ¶ 39 (2015) (holding that unless the parties have stipulated to a defendant’s status as a prohibited possessor, a court can conduct a bifurcated trial to adjudicate any charge that requires evidence of a prior felony conviction).

¶¶ 36–39 (2015) (denial of motion to sever misconduct-involving-weapons charge from murder and sexual assault charges was an abuse of discretion, notwithstanding proper jury instructions, because defendant’s possession of gun was relevant to other charges but the illegality of that possession (and underlying crim

-15, ¶¶ 36-39 (2015) (concluding a trial court’s denial of a motion to sever a misconduct- involving-weapons charge from murder and sexual assault charges was an abuse of discretion, notwithstanding proper instructions to the jury, because the necessary admission of the fact that the defendant had 3 Because

¶40 “A prosecutor may make arguments and may draw inferences that are reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 152

¶7 The State presented substantial evidence of guilt as to the three charges submitted to the jury.2 -21, ¶ 72 (2015) (“Substantial evidence to support a conviction exists when reasonable persons could accept it as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

and the state cannot convict defendant unless it proves that fact”).1 ¶11 is distinguishable.

¶208 “A prosecutor may not make any comments calculated to point out a defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right.” ¶ 150

¶7 Under Rule 13.3(a), charges may be joined if the separate crimes “arise from a series of connected acts and are provable by overlapping evidence.” ¶ 32 (2015).

(“Although denying counsel adequate time to prepare a case for trial may deny the defendant a substantial right, time constraints by themselves do not create prejudice.”) (internal citation omitted).

“Whether charges are multiplicitous is a matter of law, which we review de novo.” ¶ 83 (2015).

“Substantial evidence to support a conviction exists when reasonable persons could accept it as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” –21, ¶ 72 (2015) (internal quotes omitted).

–21, ¶ 72 (2015) (“Substantial evidence to support a conviction exists when reasonable persons could accept it as adequate and sufficient to support a 2 The State initially charged Juarez with seven counts, but only five were presented to the jury.

State v. Burns ¶21 Nevertheless, P.3d 303 (2015), to support his argument that severance was required even though the supreme court had not yet issued this opinion at the time of his trial.

–21, ¶ 72 (2015) (“Substantial evidence to support a conviction exists when reasonable persons could accept it as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

DISCUSSION ¶8 Aumiller argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the charges, P.3d 303 (2015), a supreme court decision decided after the trial court sentenced him.

—, ¶ 29, (appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if defendant can show “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ariz. R. Crim.