Cited by

we consider only the evidence before the court when it ruled on the motion.” –45, ¶ 60 (2016); (“In considering whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to sever, we are mindful that the trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining whether, in light of the evidence then before the court, the defendant has made

See Riley, 248 Ariz. at 168, ¶ 15 (explaining complaints that an attorney has “failed to conduct any interviews” are “disagreements over trial strategy, which do not amount to irreconcilable differences”); ¶ 84 (2016) (explaining that when a defendant’s complaints relate to “strategic decisions,” the trial court need not “elicit on- the-record responses from defense counsel”).

When a defendant seeks to admit third-party culpability evidence, “the proffered evidence must first be relevant; that is, it must ‘tend to create a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.’” ¶ 163 (2016) ( ¶ 16 (2002)).

¶¶ 30-31 (2021) (inconclusive DNA evidence can circumstantially establish defendant committed crime when corroborated by other evidence), ¶¶ 61, 63 (2016) (DNA evidence alone can “overwhelmingly establish” defendant committed crime (quoting United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000)).

During closing arguments, the prosecutor may “summarize the evidence, make submittals to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and suggest ultimate conclusions.” ¶ 144 (2020) ( ¶ 196 (2016)).

¶ 5 (App. 2009); –45 ¶ 60 (2016).

“A prosecutor may properly urge the jury to give more weight to a defendant’s crimes than to the mitigation evidence.” ¶ 212 (2016).

But “[w]hether the subject-matter of a [video] can be described with words is not the test of admissibility.” –60, ¶ 157 (2016).

¶ 196 (2016) (“In determining whether an argument is misconduct, .

(quoting United States v. Lott, 310 F.3d 1231, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002)); ¶ 78 (2016).

4 STATE v. LOHMEIER Decision of the Court A. Failure to Preserve Theresa’s 911 Call ¶15 To protect a criminal defendant’s due process right to present a complete defense, “the Supreme Court has developed what might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence.” –42, ¶ 43 (2016) (quotation omitted).

409 U.S. at 199-200; ¶ 132 (2016) (citing Biggers).

¶ 174 (2016) (finding that, even when a victim did not testify, a jury could reasonably conclude that the victim’s reaction was based on apprehension of imminent physical harm).