Cited by

(we presume the superior court knows the law and applies it when making decisions); –56 ¶ 18 (App. 2004) (we presume the court considered all the admissible evidence).

(finding improper the prosecutor’s comment in rebuttal that “only 8 STATE v. GASTELUM Decision of the Court two individuals knew detailed information of the crime: ‘[o]ne is [a co-conspirator] and the other one

(“Comments that are invited and prompted by opposing counsel’s arguments are not improper if they are reasonable and pertinent to the issues raised.”).

at ¶ 20 (citation modified) ().

See Jimenez, 255 Ariz. at 554 ¶¶ 10, 13 (“A juror’s assurance of impartiality need not be couched in absolute terms.”) ().

However, “[a]nswering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings constitutes a waiver [of these rights] by conduct.” (); see also Berghuis, 9 STATE V. MELENDEZ Opinion of the Court 560 U.S. at 385 (“As a general proposition, the law can presume that an individual who, with a ful

See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 26 (concluding that the evidence was not overwhelming as part of fundamental error analysis); (concluding that prosecutor’s improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify did not contribute to the jury’s verdict given the “overwhelming evidence of guilt and the context within which it was made”); (applying fundamental error review and affirming becaus

¶61 Further, comments “invited and prompted by opposing counsel’s arguments are not improper if they are reasonable and pertinent.” Acuna Valenzuela, (); see Dansdill, (prosecutor entitled to rebut defense counsel’s arguments about missing evidence and witnesses).

(citation omitted) (We presume the superior court knows the law and applies it when making decisions.); -56, ¶ 18 (App. 2004) (We presume the court considered all the admissible evidence.).

“A juror’s assurance of impartiality need not be couched in absolute terms.” see also Hoskins

(“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.” (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990)).

¶33 “A murder is especially cruel when ‘the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.’” (Shawn P.) Lynch, 225 Ariz. at 41 ¶ 78 ().

(“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.”) (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990)).

(“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.” (citation omitted)); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

See, (we presume trial judges know the law and apply it in making decisions).

See, –92 (App. 1989) (upholding peremptory strike of juror whose sister was in prison for assault—one of the charges against the defendant in the case—as race-neutral and non- pretextual); (finding the prosecutor’s explanation—that the juror was struck because he had previously served on a criminal jury that returned not guilty verdicts—to be “a facially objective basis for a peremptory challenge, unrelated to race or gender”).

–14 (1997); ¶ 14 (App. 2016) (holding appellant’s speculation—that trial court would 7 STATE v. FREENY Decision of the Court impose specific sentence had improper aggravating factor n

(stating that trial judges presumably know the law and apply it in making decisions).

Moreover, “judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.” (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990)).

(prejudice must appear affirmatively from the record); see also United States v. Weddell, 567 F.2d 767, 770 (8th Cir. 1977) (finding the failure to instruct on self-defense for one murder count was harmless where the jury rejected the defendant's self- defense claim on another murder count arising from the

See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144, ¶¶ 29–31; (concluding that the prosecutor’s statement was an impermissible comment on defendant’s failure to testify, but the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict in light of the “overwhelming evidence of guilt and the context within which it was made”); (concl

(“participation on a prior acquitting jury” can be a valid, race-neutral reason for striking potential juror).