Cited by

Instead, to support his position that admitting the recordings was an abuse of discretion.

); –80 (1975) (explaining that when a defendant assesses the evidence presented by the State and concludes it is insufficient “to secure a conviction of the greater crime,” the decision to forego jury instructions on lesser-included offenses may not constitute strategic error but a viable strategy to “secure a complete acquittal”); (explaining “there may well be cases in which the defendant will be confident enough that the State has not [proven the greater offense] that he will want to [forego

d); –80 (1975) (explaining that when a defendant assesses the evidence presented by the State and concludes it is insufficient “to secure a conviction of the greater crime,” the decision to forgo jury instructions on lesser-included offenses may not constitute strategic error but a viable strategy to “secure a complete acquittal”); (explaining “there may well be cases in which the defendant will be confident enough that the State has not [proven the greater offense] that [s]he will want to [forg

31 STATE V. PRESTON ALTON STRONG Opinion of the Court H. Admission Of Timeline Evidence ¶128 Strong asserts that the court denied him his right to due process by admitting Exhibits 957, 958, 959, and 960 without providing him the opportunity to review and rebut them

While second degree murder may be a lesser included offense of premeditated first degree murder, it is not a lesser included offense of felony murder because felony murder has no lesser included offenses.

The sanction “should be proportionate to the harm caused” and “cure that harm to the maximum practicable extent.”

.”); n.6 (1995) (“In a pure felony murder case, no lesser included instruction is necessary because felony murder includes no lesser offense.”).

¶12 A discovery sanction “should cure that harm to the maximum practicable extent,” while “affect[ing] the evidence and the merits of the case as little as possible,” ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

(no requirement to give lesser included instruction rejected by defendant “even when otherwise warranted by the evidence”); ¶¶ 79–80 (App. 2009) (omitted instruction that defendant expressly rejected at trial treated as invited error on appeal).

When a defendant assesses the evidence presented by the State and concludes that the evidence may be insufficient “to secure a conviction of the greater crime,” the decision to forego jury instructions on lesser- included offenses may not constitute strategic error, but a viable strategy to “secure a complete acquittal.” –80 (1975); (there may well be cases in which the defendant will be confident enough that the State has not proven murder that he will want to forego lesser-included offense ins

The sanction “should be proportionate to the harm caused” and “cure that harm to the maximum practicable extent.”

“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” ( ); ¶ 23

Vanderlinden, 111 Ariz. at 379-80, 530 P.2d at 1108-09; ¶ 13, (explaining former requirement that trial courts instruct on every lesser- included offense supported by the evidence was “abandoned through an amendment to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 21.3(c).”); (“A defendant should not have a lesser included instruction forced upon him.”).

And the sanction should cure that harm to the maximum practicable extent.”

¶20 Forde primarily argues that the trial court erred by considering whether the evidence was exculpatory rather than determining whether the late disclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, P.2d 621 (1995).

in which we said that “[a] defendant should not have a lesser included instruction forced upon him,” in 3 which we said that “[i]f [the defendant]

-23 , -25 (1995), we held that a trial court erroneously failed to preclude a witness’s key exhibit, “the centerpiece of the star witness’s testimony,” which was not disclosed to the defense until the day before trial.

¶ 67 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.3 requires courts to instruct juries on offenses “necessarily included in the offense charged.” ¶¶ 10-11 , State v. *88 Krone

(test for requiring lesser included instruction is whether the jury rationally could fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense).

at 2389; , (lesser included instruction should be given if “ ‘the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense’”) ( , ).

Navarro v. State, 863 S.W.2d 191, 197 (Tex.App.1993); Rule 803(3), Fed.R.Evid., advisory committee’s note.