Cited by

(holding, “absent evidence to the contrary,” an appellate court presumes a trial judge “is capable of focusing on the relevant sentencing factors and setting aside the irrelevant, inflammatory, and emotional factors”).

–77 (1995) (upholding consolidation of murder charge with charges of armed robbery and attempted murder of witness whom defendant believed had implicated him in the murder).

The protection afforded by the Sixth Amendment’s speedy-trial guarantee “is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been ‘accused’ in the course of that prosecution.” United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313 (1971); (explaining that the right to a speedy trial only attaches after an indictment has been returned).

haracter; (2) are based on the same conduct or are otherwise connected together in their commission; or (3) are alleged to have been a part of a common scheme or plan.” “If the offenses fit into one or more of these categories, Rule 13.3(c) authorizes consolidation of separately charged cases in whole or in part ‘provided that the ends of justice will not be defeated thereby.’” ().

See State v. 5 Broughton, 156 Ariz. at 397.

(“Evidence which tests, sustains, or impeaches the credibility or character of a witness is generally admissible, even if it refers to a defendant’s prior bad acts.”) (internal quotation omitted).

(noting that prior acts of aggression were properly admitted because they showed the defendant’s animosity toward the victim).

“’Evidence which tests, sustains, or impeaches the credibility or character of a witness is generally admissible,’ even if it refers to a defendant’s prior bad acts.” (citation omitted).

404(b); (holding “prior bad acts” that “all involved the victim” were “relevant to the victim’s state of mind” and to rebut the defense “of consent on the part of the victim”); (“Evidence which tests, sustains, or impeaches the credibility or character of a witness is generally admissible, even if it refers to a defendant’s prior bad acts.”) (quotations omitted).

See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313 (1971)

("Evidence which tests, sustains, or impeaches the credibility or character of a witness is generally admissible, even if it refers to a defendant's prior bad acts."

(“Evidence which tests, sustains, or impeaches the credibility or character of a witness is generally 8 STATE v. YOUNAN Decision of the Court admissible, even if it refers to a defendant’s prior bad acts.”); Je

(“Evidence which tests, sustains, or impeaches the credibility or character of a witness is generally admissible, even if it refers to a defendant’s prior bad acts.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

ctment delay has denied a defendant due process, there must be a showing that the prosecution intentionally delayed proceedings to gain a tactical advantage over the defendant or to harass him, and that the defendant has actually been prejudiced by the delay.” accord Lacy, 187 Ariz. at 346, 929 P.2d at 1294

Such execution impact evidence is not relevant because it is “altogether unrelated to defendant, to his character, or to the circumstance of the offense.” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 222 ¶ 119, 141 P.3d at 397 ( ).

P. 9.3(d); -80, -49 (1995).

P. 9.3(d) (allowing prosecutor “presence of one investigator at counsel table”); e.g., State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 483, (detective was Rule 9.3(d) investigator seated at counsel table); (two investigating detectives from different police agencies seated at counsel table).

State v. Williams, 183 Ariz. 368, 382

See, (“Rule 15.1(a)(1) requires the state to disclose the names of all [non-expert] witnesses together with their relevant written or recorded statements,” but does “not require the state to explain how it ‘intends’ to use each of its witnesses.”

(noting possible alternative explanations for why a defendant might shoot someone rather than to conceal a crime would go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility).

See § 13 — 1001(A)(2); , (“A person can, with a culpable state of mind, take an intentional step toward committing first degree murder without exerting or threatening to exert physical force on another person.”); , (wife convicted of attempted murder in murder f

“Without a showing of some impairment at the time of the offense, drug use cannot be a mitigating circumstance of any kind.”