Cited by

Moreover, the Arizona Supreme Court directs that the superior court need not consider the “pro se motion of a defendant represented by counsel.”

(holding motion for mistrial based on evidentiary concerns is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

Because “[m]isconduct alone will not cause a reversal,” “[t]he focus is on the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”

See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 256 (1969) (“constitutional error in the trial of a criminal offense may be held harmless if there is ‘overwhelming’ untainted evidence to support the conviction.”); (”Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is harmless if we can say beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”); see also Holle, 238 Ariz. at ___, ¶¶ 26-31 (affirming conviction for child molestation based on harmless error review despite lega

(“[D]uring closing arguments counsel may summarize the evidence, make submittals to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and suggest ultimate conclusions.”).

(“[D]uring closing arguments counsel may summarize the evidence, make submittals to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and suggest ultimate conclusions.”).

¶11 Pursuant to Burns, the trial court here abused its discretion in denying Aumiller’s severance motion, but like in Burns, the error was harmless.2 (providing that error is harmless if this Court can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not have affected the verdict).

This court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, “viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.”

We give deference to the trial court’s ruling because it is in the best position to evaluate “the atmosphere of the trial, the manner in which the objectionable statements were made, and the possible effect it had on the jury and the trial.” (citation omitted).

(“during closing arguments counsel may summarize the evidence, make submittals to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and suggest ultimate conclusions.”).

¶14 We review de novo a trial court’s denial of a motion for acquittal, “viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.”

Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 585, ¶ 11, 208 P.3d at 236 ( (internal quotation marks omitted)).

See Miranda-Cabrera, 99 P.3d at 42 (Apprendi sentencing error harmless in light of evidence adduced at trial); (“We consider the error ‘in light of all of the evidence.’”)

5 STATE v. GOETTL Decision of the Court is harmless [and does not require reversal] if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”