Cited by

[when] defendant was isolated from contact with children.”); (deducting served time from overall difference in time between prior and alleged acts).

abrogation on other grounds recognized by McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798, 815 (9th Cir. 2015).

(noting that we will affirm a defendant’s convictions despite error if the State establishes “beyond a reasonable doubt[] that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”).

(“The State has the burden of convincing us that error is harmless.

¶ 38 (failure to sever harmless where error “did not affect the jury’s verdicts”); (“We must be confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the jury’s judgment.”).

(“[T]emporal remoteness goes to weight, not admissibility.”).

¶8 We review claims of insufficient evidence de novo, and our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the verdict.

In addition, “a lawyer is prohibited from asserting personal knowledge of facts in issue before the tribunal unless he testifies as a witness.” (citation omitted).

When a witness makes an improper statement in front of the jury, we give deference to the trial court’s denial of a mistrial “because the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate ‘the atmosphere of the trial, the manner in which the objectionable statement was made, and the possible effect it had on the jury and the trial.’” ().

(“When an issue is raised 3 Hernandez also “incorporates by reference and submits additional instances raised to the trial court that would constitute impermissible prosecutorial misconduct.” Such an attempted incorporation by reference is inadequate to sufficiently develop the argument on appeal.

We review a denial of a Rule 20 motion de novo, “viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.”

(“[T]he same error may be fundamental in one case but not in another.”).

¶ 68 (2006) ("We presume that the jurors followed the court's instructions.").

n.1 (1993), abrogation on other grounds recognized by McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798, 815 (9th Cir. 2015).

[I]t was surely foreseeable that [the victim] would suffer significant mental anguish while being bound to the chair.” (internal citations omitted) (internal quotation marks and modifications omitted)); –05 (1993) (“The fact that [the victim’s] hands were bound indicates that she 14 STATE OF ARIZONA V. DWANDARRIUS JAMAR ROBINSON Opinion of the Court was conscious and tied-up to prevent struggling.”).

“When an issue is raised but erroneously ruled on by the trial court, this court reviews for harmless error.” (emphasis added); accord State v. Teran, No. 1 CA- CR 21-0148, 2022 WL 1146355, at *4 ¶ 25 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr.

is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993) (emphasis in original)).