Cited by

¶¶ 6, 8 (2004) (same, regarding mental-health-related mitigation evidence in penalty phase of trial); ¶¶ 50, 53-55 (2017) (same, because “under Phillips and its progeny, a trial court can condition admission of a defendant’s mental health-related mitigation evidence on his cooperation with the state’s mental health evaluation”); -501 (1993) (applying case law allowing rebuttal expert testimony in insanity defense cases to expert testimony in Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim.

For that reason, the dispositive question before us is not whether the court could have used a better reconstruction method but whether the record is complete enough for “adequate consideration of the errors assigned.”

¶183 A record that is of “sufficient completeness for adequate consideration of the errors assigned” is “satisfactory to afford [a] defendant 59 STATE V. RILEY Opinion of the Court a meaningful right of appeal.” ().

§ 13-751(B) (providing that the rules of evidence apply in the aggravation phase to determine existence of aggravating circumstances); (deciding that the state’s expert opinion evidence that no examiner could accurately diagnose a defendant’s mental state at the time of the murder was relevant to rebut the defense expert’s testimony that the defendant convicted of felony murder did not act with the mental state required by Enmund).

Kansas v. Cheever, 134 S. Ct. 596, 601 (2013); -01 (1993); -26 (App. 1987).

¶8 Trial transcripts must be “satisfactory to afford defendant a meaningful right of appeal.” Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24.

¶46 Estelle does not control when, as here, “a defendant claims a diminished mental condition and offers supporting psychiatric testimony.” cf. Tallabas, 155 Ariz. at 324, 746 P.2d at 494 (“The defendant cannot cast aside the protection of the privilege for matters that benefit him and then invoke the privilege to prevent the prosecution from inquiring into matters that may be harmful to him.”).

-01, 858 -46 (1993); ¶ 9, (applying Schackart to the penalty phase of a capital trial).

supp. op., , 119 n. 1, , 1282 n. 1 (1995) (interpreting state constitutional right to appellate review as “an essential safeguard against wrongful conviction” requiring “a meaningful form of appeal”); -99 , -44 (1993) (record must be sufficient “to afford defendant a meaningful right of appeal” under state constitution).

(“Once the trial judge preliminarily determines that a confession is admissible, he or she must, if requested by the defense, instruct the jury to disregard the confession unless it is found to be voluntary.”); -07

(“[A] 36 defendant who places his or her mental condition in issue and gives notice of an intention to rely on psychiatric testimony has ‘opened the door’ to an examination by an expert appointed on motion of the state.”).

the trial court granted the State’s unopposed motion.

(“If the defense wishes to challenge the manner in which a mental examination has been conducted, or an expert’s conclusions, this can be done on cross-examination or during the testimony of its own witness.”)

for example, defense counsel indicated that he planned to call a psychiatrist to testify 5 regarding the defendant’s mental state at the time of the killing.

835 , 122 L.Ed.2d 103 (1993); Wilson v. Allgood, 391 F.2d 285 (5th Cir.1968); , cert.

So long as the record is of “sufficient completeness for adequate consideration of the errors assigned,” then it is “satisfactory to afford defendant a meaningful right of appeal.” , cert.

8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2354(b)(2), at 712; , (newspaper article about defendant’s attempt to plead guilty would have been extrinsic), cert.