Cited by

(addressing an issue likely to arise on remand); ¶ 15 (App. 2019) (“Because this is an issue of law likely to arise on remand, we address it to provide guidance to the [trial] court.”); ¶ 17 (App. 2019) (same).

¶33 “Prosecutorial vouching takes two forms: ‘(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its [evidence] [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the [evidence].’” (alterations in Newell) ().

Prosecutorial vouching occurs when “the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness.”

¶43 There are two forms of prosecutorial vouching: “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [or] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”

Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24 (guaranteeing the right “to meet the witnesses against” criminal defendants “face to face”); n.2 (App. 2007) (“[O]ur supreme court has determined that Arizona’s constitution provides substantially the same right to confrontation as the Sixth Amendment and requires no different analysis.”) (-33 (1989)).

(Prosecutorial vouching occurs “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”).

See, (finding the prosecutor vouched in arguing “the State wouldn’t have put [the witness] on the witness stand if [it] didn’t believe every word out of his mouth”); –43 (1973) (finding the prosecutor vouched in arguing “I don’t think [the witness] ever lied to you .

Prosecutorial vouching occurs either “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”

aim that comment constituted improper vouching ¶17 “Two general forms of prosecutorial vouching exist: (1) when ‘the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness’; or (2) when ‘the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.’” ¶ 75 (2018) ().

¶42 “Prosecutorial vouching takes two forms: ‘(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its [evidence] [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the [evidence].’” Newell, 212 Ariz. at 402, ¶ 62 (alterations in original) ().

(addressing an issue likely to arise on remand); ¶ 17 (App. 2019) (same).

(explaining that prosecutorial vouching occurs either “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [or] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony”).

“Two general forms of prosecutorial vouching exist: (1) when ‘the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness’; or (2) when ‘the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.’” Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. at 217 ¶ 75 ().

¶10 Two forms of prosecutorial vouching are recognized, including “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”

Two general forms of prosecutorial vouching exist: (1) when “the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness”; or (2) when “the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”

Improper prosecutorial vouching occurs when the prosecutor either places the prestige of the government behind a witness, or suggests evidence not presented to the jury supports a witness’s testimony, and includes personal 2 Braxton also argues the State violated Brady by failing to disclose the victim’s intent to identify him during her testimony.

Improper prosecutorial vouching consists of two types: “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”

Improper prosecutorial vouching consists of two types: “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”

Prosecutorial misconduct occurs where the prosecutor: (1) “places the prestige of the government behind its evidence,” or (2) “suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the evidence.” ¶ 62 (2006) ().

There are “two forms of impermissible prosecutorial vouching: (1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggest that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” (citations omitted).