Cited by

Opinion of the Court Mr. McCauley did not know right from wrong to prove the statutory mitigator.” But this Court has described § 13-751(G)(1)’s “capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct” as the capacity to “know[] right from wrong.” See, ¶¶ 100–104 (2013); ¶¶ 73–76 (1998)

–56 (1997) (whether the defendant’s presence was waived is not an issue where there is a housekeeping matter that has no argument, no other issue was addressed, the defendant could not have contributed anything and the defendant failed to demonstrate that his presence would have made any difference).

(finding that unfavorable rulings are insufficient support for a claim that a judge is biased or prejudiced against a party).

(“Because our court does not act as a fact-finder, we generally do not consider materials that are outside the record on appeal.”); Ariz. R. Civ.

(Our review is limited to the record on appeal.).

(appellate court “does not act as a fact-finder”).

Decision of the Court historical.” The State also contends that a presentence report in the 2009 case—which was not part of the trial record but which the State attached to its response on appeal—establishes that Ramirez’s crimes in that case were committed on separate “occasions.” We decline the State’s (declining to take judicial notice, on appellate review, of unauthenticated documents offered by the State to support the trial court’s prior conviction finding in lieu of the “customary” practi

-05 (1993) (3-2 decision).

But “[s]enselessness and helplessness, without more, are ordinarily insufficient to prove heinousness or depravity,” because they are “less probative of the defendant’s state of mind” than are the other factors

(citing Morris K. Udall et al., Arizona Practice, Law of Evidence § 152, at 331 (3d ed. 1991) for the proposition that the “Supreme Court will take judicial notice of its own records and decisions and those of the superior courts”).

“Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or a deep-seated favoritism.” Stagecoach Trails MHC, ¶ 21 (App. 2013)

This right is protected under the Sixth Amendment and Article 2, Section 24, of the Arizona Constitution, as well as the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi) (the argument section of a brief must include “citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on”); (an appellate court cannot consider “materials that are outside the record on appeal” because it “does not act as a fact-finder.”).

614(b) (“The court may examine a witness regardless of who calls the witness.”); (“A court .

(“Because our court does not act as a fact-finder, we generally do not consider materials that are outside the record on appeal.”); ARCAP 11(a) (governing composition of record on appeal).

We will not consider materials outside the record on appeal, nor will we consider any “extraneous” factual assertions not found in the record on appeal.