Cited by

See, (“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial only if it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision 2 In Martinez, we analyzed whether the law enforcement officer’s testimony impermissibly commented on another witness’s truthfulness or credibility.

(evidence of defendant’s previous assault on victim “less than one month” before her murder relevant to show defendant’s motive and intent).

(finding substantial evidence of premeditation where “the murder itself was protracted, brutal, and involved a sustained attack on the victim”); (similar).

is to excise the illegally obtained information from the affidavit and then determine whether the remaining information is sufficient to establish probable cause.”

¶10 “[A] defendant has a fundamental right, guaranteed under the Constitution, to testify.” (citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 53, n.10 (1987)).

“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial only when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”

“Motions for new trial are not favored, and the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”

the court excised the subpoenaed information and found that no probable cause remained to support Osgood’s warrantless arrest.

(“[A] sua sponte inquiry by the trial court as to whether a defendant desires to testify is neither necessary nor appropriate.”).

See Karo, 468 U.S. at 719 (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 172); (“The proper method for determining the validity of the search .

In deciding whether to grant a mistrial based on witness testimony, the superior court considers whether “the testimony called to the jury’s attention matters that it would not have been justified in considering in reaching the verdict,” and “the probability that the testimony influenced the jury.”

“Unfair prejudice” means “an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ().

(finding substantial evidence supported the premeditation element of first-degree murder, and explaining that we do not reweigh the evidence).

(“In capital cases, the [jury] can give aggravating weight only to evidence that tends to establish an aggravating circumstance enumerated in A.R.S.

(citation omitted) (stating when 7 STATE v. MANZANARES Decision of the Court there is an illegal entry into a home followed by a search pursuant to a valid search warrant, evidence obtained by the search warrant “may

“The basic premise of the independent source doctrine is that the police should not be placed in a worse position than they would have been in, absent the illegal conduct.”

It is one of the rights that are essential to due process of law in a fair adversary process.’”) (quoting Faretta v. Cal., 422 U.S. 806, 819 n.15 (1975))