Cited by

(A trial court is presumed to know and follow the law.).

(“[W]e presume that the jury read and followed the relevant instruction.”).

further instruct the jury as appropriate.”); (“The decision to further instruct a jury on a matter .

But when the jury appears confused on a legal issue and clarity cannot be obtained from the instructions, “the trial judge has a ‘responsibility to give the jury the required guidance by a lucid statement of the relevant legal criteria.’” ().

The State “may not comment on a defendant’s post-arrest, post- Miranda warnings silence as evidence of guilt.”

(response to juror’s question); ¶ 15 (2009) (adequacy of jury instructions).

We therefore review the instruction for fundamental error.”) (citing Gendron); (similar); ¶ 20 (App. 2020) (“the court’s failure to sua sponte give .

(quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884, 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)); see Allen v. Roe, 305 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that an officer's subjective intentions do not affect whether the public safety exception applies).

(response to juror’s question); ¶ 15 (2009) (adequacy of jury instructions).

("[T]he trial court is presumed to know and follow the law.").

is within the [superior] court’s discretion.”

Additionally, the court instructed the jury to “not concern yourselves with the reasons why some portions of the exhibits [were] deleted [and to] not speculate upon what the deleted portions might or might not reveal.” (explaining the presumption that jurors follow their instructions, absent evidence to the contrary).

extends to a defendant’s sentencing hearing.” Weiss, 184 Ariz. at 629 ().

Whether questioning falls within the public safety exception turns on “whether there was an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger.” (quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884, 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)).

When a deliberating jury is confused about a legal issue and “the resolution of the question is not apparent from an earlier instruction, the trial judge has a responsibility to give the jury the required guidance by a lucid statement of the relevant legal criteria.”

See State v. Ramirez , , 132, , 253 (1994) (state does not have "constitutional duty to perform any particular tests") , quoting Arizona v. Youngblood , 488 U.S. 51 , 59, 109 S.Ct.

Hulsey cannot establish fundamental error because the trial court and counsel explained that the lawyers’ arguments were not evidence, (presuming jurors follow court’s instructions), and he has not identified how he was prejudiced by the improper vouching.