Cited by

¶25 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 suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” -77, -33 (1994) (citation omitted).

Impermissible vouching takes two forms: “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [and] (2) where the prosecutor 10 STATE V. BURUATO Decision of the Court suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” –77, –33 (1994) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

P. 16.1(d) (“Except for good cause, or as otherwise provided by these rules, an issue previously determined by the court shall not be reconsidered.”); (explaining that an appellate decision “is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings”) (internal quotation omitted).

Accordingly, a “claimed inability to recall, when disbelieved by the trial judge, may be viewed as inconsistent with previous statements.” ¶ 58 , ( , ).

Moreover, in a fact situation much like this one, we found no error in a prosecutor’s passing statement that the witness told police “exactly what happened.” -77, -33 (1994).

“A claimed inability to recall, when disbelieved by the trial judge, may be viewed as inconsistent with previous statements.” (internal quotation omitted).

(under law of case doctrine, “‘no question necessarily involved and decided on .

(quoting In re Monaghan’s Estate, ).

See, -76 , -32 (1994) (holding that the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who testified at trial that he could no longer remember details of the crime) (citing United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S.Ct.

180 Ariz. 268, 286-87, -43 (1994).

Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 311 (1966)

In such cases, we have upheld the sentence of death because, in such cases, “[t]here is simply nothing to weigh or balance----” , , (finding remand unnecessary, citing Bible, when one aggravator set aside but mitigating evidence is de minimis); , (holding that where no new evidence was to be received, no evidence was improperly excluded, and mitigating evidence was, at best, de minimis, supreme court could reweigh factors, citing Bible).

See, , (“At the trial court level, the doctrine of the law of the case is ‘merely a practice that protects the ability of the court to build to its final judgment by cumulative rulings, with reconsideration or review postponed until after the judgment is entered.’ ” (quoting IB James W. Moor

The law-of-the-case doctrine is “a rule of procedure, not substance,” , to which many exceptions have been recognized.

The law-of-the-case doctrine is “a rule of procedure, not substance,” to which many exceptions have been recognized.

we held that the (F)(6) aggravator cannot be sustained solely on the basis that a defendant killed to eliminate witnesses.

The function of an opening statement is “to inform the jury of what the party expects to prove and prepare the jury for the evidence that is to be presented.”

he earlier ruling must be followed because it became the “law of this case.” The supreme court has recognized, however, that “[a]t the trial court level, the doctrine of the law of the case is ‘merely a practice that protects the ability of the court to build to its final judgment by cumulative rulings, with reconsideration or review postponed until after the judgment is entered.’” , (quoting 1B James W. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.404[4.1] (2d ed.1992)).