Cited by

The prosecutor even stated the technique was used by an “investigator, somebody not in this court” and “[n]o one is saying that there’s anything wrong with that technique.” This is unlike State v. Cornell, where the prosecutor asked questions insinuating “that advisory counsel coached Defendant on how to (2018); ¶ 27 (2022) (finding argument waived where defendant generally recited the law but failed to develop the argument).

And once a defendant shows error was fundamental under either prong one or two, the defendant “must also show the error prejudiced him.” ¶ 46.

secutor’s comment in rebuttal that “only 8 STATE v. GASTELUM Decision of the Court two individuals knew detailed information of the crime: ‘[o]ne is [a co-conspirator] and the other one is sitting right here at the table asking you not to hold him accountable through his lawyer’”); ¶ 77 (2022) (“As relevant here, we have held that a prosecutor cannot point out that the defendant supplied no evidence concerning a factual circumstance if the defendant is the only person who could provide that evid

“An error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion may constitute an abuse of discretion.” Chambers, ().

“An error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion may constitute an abuse of discretion.” Chambers, ().

On review, “we consider ‘only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.’” ¶ 13 (2024) ( ¶ 26 (2022)).

¶ 101 n. 9 (2004) (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.” (quotation omitted)); -96, ¶¶ 57-58 (2022) (rejecting defendant’s challenge to trial court’s decision to strike certain prospective jurors because defendant did not “articulate[] how any of the strikes prejudiced him”).

–94, ¶ 46 (2022) (quoting Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144, ¶ 31).

Viewed in the requisite light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, ¶ 2 n. 3 (2022), the evidence shows that on August 18, 2022, Stephens came to the CASS office in Phoenix to meet with R.W.

In doing so, we consider “only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and [view such evidence] in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” ¶ 26 (2022) ( ¶ 10 (2017)).

iew the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolve all inferences against the defendant, 3 STATE v. HARPER Decision of the Court ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2008), but we review the superior court’s Rule 20 decision de novo, ¶ 86 (2022).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, ¶ 2 n. 3 (2022), the evidence shows that in May 2021, Padilla and his wife, Melissa Padilla (“Melissa”)1, who lived in Mesa, had been arguing for several days when, on the evening of May 20, Melissa packed up some of Padilla’s clothes, put them in their white Chevrolet Suburban, and told him to leave.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Viewed in the requisite light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, ¶ 2 n. 3 (2022), the evidence shows that one evening in March 2022, a Phoenix police officer was in the vicinity of 26th Avenue and Bethany Home Road when he was approached by someone from a nearby bar with a request for assistance.

§ 13-117(B) from directly or indirectly bringing to the jury’s attention that the defendant did not testify.” ¶ 77 (2022).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, ¶ 2 n.3 (2022), the evidence establishes that Borquez and Teresa (a pseudonym) began a romantic relationship in January 2017.

¶28 As a general matter, we defer to a trial court’s balancing determination under Rule 403, and we review such decisions for abuse of discretion, (“weighing and balancing under Rule 403 is within the discretion of the trial court”).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, ¶ 2 n.3 (2022), the evidence establishes that while patrolling Interstate 40 in the early morning hours of June 29, 2022, Detective Dickinson, a 15-year veteran of the Arizona Department of Public Safety who was then serving in the K-9 unit, initiated a traffic stop after seeing a semi-trailer truck drift across

“An error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion may constitute an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (2023) ( ¶ 26 (2022)).

¶ 66 (2022) (noting that technician’s testimony that a hatchet seemed to have human tissue on it was not definitive in establishing that the substance was, in fact, human tissue).