Cited by

–92 (1996) (–39 (App. 1992)).

¶11 To be sure, the court has discretion to investigate allegations of juror misconduct, ¶ 56 (2004), and should err on the side of granting an evidentiary hearing to permit an informed ruling

“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

We must decide whether the state presented evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

But “[w]hen victim impact evidence is offered, we have generally assumed that the sentencing judge is capable of focusing on the relevant factors and setting aside the irrelevant, inflammatory, and emotional factors, absent evidence to the contrary.”

However, the defendant must clearly and unambiguously request counsel, articulating the “desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.” Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994); –51 (1994)

ns the state was required to “at least present some evidence from which the jury could conclude that the loss was greater than $2,000, which it failed to do.” ¶43 Our supreme court has determined that “specific testimony of value is not always necessary if value may be inferred from other evidence, and the item is not so unique as to require expert valuation testimony.”

“[W]e have generally assumed that the sentencing judge is capable of focusing on the relevant factors and setting aside the irrelevant, inflammatory, and emotional factors, absent evidence to the contrary.”

“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“[T]he appellate court considers only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.” State v. Becerra, 3 STATE v. FARIA Decision of the Court ¶ 2 (App. 2016) ().

11 (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, and resolving all inferences against the defendant, we must determine whether the state presented evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

¶7 We review the denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, “but we review de novo mixed questions of law and fact and the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusions” as to whether a search was lawful, ¶ 19 (App. 2007).

We look “only at the evidence presented to the trial court during the suppression hearing.”

(recognizing that murder victim’s funeral expenses and related costs “are proper restitutionary items”).

See, (holding that convict’s challenge to lethal gas as cruel and unusual punishment had “no merit”); (rejecting argument that lethal gas is cruel and unusual punishment).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolving all inferences against the defendant, we must determine whether the state presented evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

–92 (1996) (–39 (App. 1992)).

“Both direct and circumstantial evidence should be considered in determining whether substantial evidence supports a conviction.” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().

¶ 32 (2000) (mistrial); (new trial).

“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”