Cited by

(“Arizona’s constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is identically worded to its federal counterpart, and .

¶ 12 (2006) (holding gang evidence was admissible to establish defendant’s motive for killing a witness to a crime for which a younger, fellow gang member was being charged, where defendant had no connection to the victim but had a duty to protect the younger gang member); (holding 4 STATE v. GOMEZ Decision of the Court gang evidence admissible to show motive); United States v. Santiago, 46 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining the admission of evidence relating to gangs and

(“The trial judge’s original ruling allowing the state to offer evidence of gang membership to prove motive was correct.”).

The mitigating weight of a defendant’s age depends upon the “defendant’s level of intelligence, maturity, involvement in the crime, and past experience.” McKinney I, 245 Ariz. at 227 ¶ 11 ().

("To determine whether there is sufficient evidence [for a] lesser-included offense instruction, the test is whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.") (quotation omitted).

4 STATE V. MCKINNEY Opinion of the Court weigh a defendant’s age in mitigation, we consider the “defendant's level of intelligence, maturity, involvement in the crime, and past experience.”

See State v. Jackson , , 25, , 1043 (1996) (rejecting challenge to death penalty under article 2, section 15 and ascribing to it "the same meaning" as Eighth Amendment "where the parties do not argue otherwise"); State v. Endreson , , 370, , 458 (1972) (same, and stating: "Unless and until the United

“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is 4 STATE v. RAMOS-RAMIREZ Decision of the Court whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

we held that the trial court did not err by allowing the state to file its death notice one day after the deadline when the defendant knew of the state’s intent a week earlier and had time to prepare for trial.

4 STATE v. DODD Decision of the Court the greater offense.”

“We review the trial court’s 24 STATE V. BURNS Opinion of the Court decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.” Villalobos, 225 Ariz. at 82 ¶ 33, 235 P.3d at 235; (reviewing a court’s “imposition and choice of sanction” for an abuse of discretion).

“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.”

“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” ( ); ¶ 23

(“The imposition and choice of sanction are within the discretion of the trial court.”).

[are] so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); 5 STATE V. BURUATO Decision of the Court (“[T]he modus operandi of and the circumstances surrounding the two crimes must be sufficiently similar as to be like a signature.” (citation omitt

State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 27

-81 ¶¶ 37-39, -90 (2000)

Do you want a shot at it?”); , (describing how defendant sang a rap song both immediately after killing his victim and then after showing a picture of the victim’s children to his co-defendant); see Clark, 126 Ariz. at 437 , 616 P.2d at 897 (finding depravity when defendant kept a souvenir of his crime).

are so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” (citations omitted); Except as provided in Rule 404(c) evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.

See, e.g., Medina, 193 Ariz. at 514 ¶ 41, 975 P.2d at 104 ¶ 41 (relishing, gratuitous violence, and helplessness); , (helplessness and gratuitous violence); , (helplessness and relishing); , (helplessness and relishing); , (needless mutilation of victim); , (r

(defendant conceded motive was to steal car and valuables); Lee, 185 Ariz. at 558 , 917 P.2d at 701 ; , Walton, 159 Ariz. at 588 , 769 P.2d at 1034 (defendant intended death of victim to afford more time to escape undetected