Cited by

an incident may nonetheless contribute to a finding of persistent and pervasive misconduct”) ¶ 14 (2017) ¶¶ 15–16 (2018), ¶ 88 (2018) (considering only claims that constitute error in a cumulative error review).

is a question of law that we review de novo, while we review the judge’s 8 STATE v. HAMILTON Decision of the Court assessment of the adequacy of disclosure for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 21 (2006), (abrogated on other grounds) (internal citations omitted).

Even when individual acts of prosecutorial misconduct are harmless, their cumulative effect may demonstrate “that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.” ¶ 155 (2006) (internal quotation omitted), ¶¶ 11–15 (2017).

¶19 The dissent also cites our state supreme court’s and State v. Lynch, 238 Ariz. 8 STATE v. PORTER Opinion of the Court 84 (2015).

See Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (plurality opinion); abrogated in part by Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 140–41, ¶ 16.

Beyond that, the DNA expert qualified and limited the value of the evidence as “inconclusive,” recognizing the “low level” of DNA, and never implied an exact “match.” ¶¶ 49-50 (2017)

As such, the State must show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144 ¶ 30 ( ¶ 126 (2017)).

¶¶ 33–34 (2017) (affirming five-minute-per-juror time limit), abrogated on other grounds by Escalante

en individual acts of prosecutorial misconduct are harmless, the cumulative effect of the incidents may demonstrate “that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.” ¶ 155 (2006) (internal quotation omitted), ¶¶ 11-15 (2017).

(stating we will affirm a trial court’s Rule 404(b) rulings when “supported by the facts before the court”); ¶ 77 (2017) (“Before admitting [Rule 404(b)] evidence, the court must find (1) clear and convincing proof that the defendant committed the act; (2) it is offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); (3) it is relevant to prove that purpose; and (4) its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the dan

¶ 40 (2017) (conjunctive); ¶ 12 (2016) (same); ¶ 12 (2009) (same), ¶ 58 (2014) (disjunctive); ¶ 16 (2014) (same); ¶ 13 (2010) (sa

2001)); 5 ¶ 119 (2017) (holding that the “prosecutor [does] not have to explicitly argue future dangerousness for it to be at issue; instead, it is sufficient if future dangerousness is ‘a logical inference from the evidence’ or is ‘injected into the case through the State’s closing argument’” (citation omitted)).

1969 (describing Simmons as providing a "narrow right of rebuttal"); Townes v. Murray , 68 F.3d 840 , 850 (4th Cir. 1995) ("[T]he defendant's right, under Simmons , is one of opportunity, not of result."); State v. Hulsey , , 396 ¶ 138, , 437 (2018) (same); cf. State v. Escalante-Orozco , , 285 ¶ 118, (suggesting that Simmons error is waivable).

¶ 12 (2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted), Newell, 212 Ariz. at 401, ¶ 54.

Rule 404(c)(1)(A); ¶ 77 (2017)

¶21 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. Escalante–Orozco, ¶¶ 13–14 (2017)

93, 224, ¶ 128 (2006), abrogated 8Mullet also asserts vouching occurred “in the form of putting the prestige of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office behind the integrity of the investigation and charges.” 14 ¶¶ 13-14 (2017).

Although we ordinarily review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 51 (2017), we review evidentiary rulings that implicate a defendant’s constitutional rights de novo, –41 ¶ 35 (2016).

¶ 21 (2006), ¶ 14 (2017).

¶ 128 (2006), ¶¶ 13–14 (2017).

If any “incidents contributing to a finding of misconduct are identified, we must evaluate their cumulative effect on the trial.” ¶ 155 (2006)

¶ 104 (2017) (de novo review).

¶ 21 (2006), ¶¶ 13-14 (2017).

§ 13-753(A) (stating a person who has an ID “shall not be sentenced to death”); ¶ 8 (2017).

And while relevance is one factor in a court’s 404(b) analysis, ¶ 77 (2017), an objection under Rule 401 is insufficient to preserve a Rule 404(b) objection on appeal, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (“[A]n objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.”).