Cited by

(concluding that erroneous admission of hearsay evidence that was cumulative to other evidence was harmless)

But “[e]ven if a defendant does not contest certain issues, photographs are still admissible if relevant because the ‘burden to prove every element of a crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.’” (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69 (1991)), (“While it may be true that the subject-matter of a photograph can be described adequately

See State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 78-79, ¶¶ 24-25 ().

Although Garnica did not contest ownership and possession of the weapon, "[e]ven if a defendant does not contest certain issues, photographs are still admissible if relevant because the 'burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant's tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.'" (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69 (1991))

(“Although a defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to confront witnesses and present a defense, the right is limited to the presentation of matters admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules .

The general rule, known as Lord Mansfield’s rule, is that a juror’s testimony is not admissible to impeach the verdict.” ¶ 48 (2012) ( ).

Cf. Hampton, 213 Ariz. at 173 ¶ 19 (“Even if a defendant does not contest certain issues, photographs are still admissible if relevant because the burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.” ().

State v. Portis, 187 Ariz. 1 Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to "prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement."

Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21, as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” (1991

ourt concluded, the statements are relevant as to the charged offenses, and although some of 24 Moreover, even if a defendant does not contest certain issues, photographs may still be admissible if relevant because the State’s “burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.” (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69 (1991)), P.3d 509 (2012).

Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679; () (stating a court does not violate a defendant’s confrontation rights by limiting cross-examination to “matters admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules, including relevance”).

unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict[.]"); –23 (1996), -43 (2012).

“Even if a defendant does not contest certain issues, photographs are still admissible if relevant because the ‘burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.’” (citation omitted) (abrogated on other grounds, -43, ¶¶ 15-20 (2012)).

However, this right is not without limitation; “[a] defendant’s fundamental right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses is ‘limited to the presentation of matters admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules, including relevance.’” Riggs, 189 Ariz. at 333 ().

State v. Cañez, ¶ 62, (“A defendant’s fundamental right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses is ‘limited to the presentation of matters admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules, including relevance.’” ( )).

-43, ¶¶ 15-20, - 13 (2012).

United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998); (“Although a defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to .

(defendant must show juror “was biased and could not reasonably render a fair or impartial verdict”), -43 ¶¶ 15, 20, -13 (2012).

¶49 A defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense “is limited to the presentation of matters admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules.” State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 14, abrogated in part on other grounds by Ferrero, 229 Ariz. at 243 ¶ 20, 274 P.3d at 513; see also Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410, 411 n.15 (1988).

“The general rule, known as Lord Mansfield’s rule, is that a juror’s testimony is not admissible to impeach the verdict.”