Cited by

P. 32.16(k) (appellate review under Rule 32.16 discretionary); (failure to offer argument sufficient for appellate review waives claim); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to “develop the argument in any meaningful way” waives claim).

¶11 Although each party is entitled to jury instructions on “any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence,” Champagne, 247 Ariz. at 137 ¶ 60 (), a jury instruction is improper if it misleads the jury, ¶ 37 (2010).

(“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”).

(“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”).

This Court has made clear that “[a] party is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”

(insufficient argument waives appellate review); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review as discretionary); (insufficient argument waives claim on review); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to cite to relevant authority and to develop the argument waives claim on review).

(“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”).

See Rule 33.16(c)(2)(D) (requiring petitioners to explain why their claims warrant relief); (failing to develop supporting argument waives the issue on review).

(declining to address arguments on appeal where opening brief did not contain contentions of appellant with respect to issues presented); (finding claims waived for insufficient argument on appeal).

P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review as discretionary); (court of appeals does not address issues raised for the first time in a petition for review); ¶ 16(App. 2013) (failure to cite to relevant authority and to develop the argument waives claim on review); (insufficient argument wives claim on review).

(“The questioning may have been argumentative.

(“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”).

P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review under Rule 32.9 as discretionary); (insufficient argument waives claim on review); State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 2 STATE v. GOC Decision of the Court 142, 146 (1984) (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).

¶ 36 (2017) (explaining that potential reluctance to impose the death penalty was a race-neutral reason), abrogated on other grounds by Escalante, (determining that prosecutors may strike jurors “who have expressed reservations about capital punishment” even if they are “not excludable for cause”).

We “will not reverse [the decision to refuse a jury instruction] absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”

2 STATE v. COFFEY Decision of the Court petition” and “specific references to the record”); (insufficient argument waives claim on review); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with [Rules governing post-conviction relief] or be denied relief.”); ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (finding petition for review incorporating trial court f

¶8 “[W]e will consider a matter not raised below only if it is a matter of fundamental error.”

lthough a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction “on all theories reasonably supported by the evidence, ‘when a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.’” ¶ 91 (2014) ().

¶ 28 (2010) (-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review).