Cited by

“The party challenging the juror bears the burden of establishing that the juror could not be fair and impartial.” ¶ 37, (2000), supplemented on other grounds

State v. Rhodes , , 238, , 508 (1973) ; see also State v. Trostle , , 16, , 881 (1997) (improper comment harmless given "overwhelming evidence of guilt").

(“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))).

(defendant’s unrebutted expert testimony regarding mental illness and social dysfunction, supported by lay witnesses’ descriptions of defendant, warranted “serious consideration” as a mitigating factor).

Furthermore, “[c]omments that are invited and prompted by opposing counsel’s arguments are not improper if they are reasonable and pertinent to the issues raised.”

improper for a prosecutor to improperly argue the burden of proof,” (determining that such issues were cured by the length of the trial and the court’s curative instructions), “[c]omments that are invited and prompted by opposing counsel’s arguments are not improper if they are reasonable and pertinent to the issues raised,”

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

Although a defendant is entitled to jury instructions reasonably supported by evidence at trial, the court is not required to give an instruction which is adequately covered by other instructions, Hoskins, 199 Ariz. at 145, ¶ 75.

(finding seven-hour interview did not render statements involuntary where the defendant freely answered questions and “did not ask to stop or take a break”).

¶ 32 (2012) (“[W]hen there are no material facts in dispute and the only issue is the legal consequence of undisputed material facts, the superior court need not hold an evidentiary hearing.”); (finding failure to request evidentiary hearing about juror misconduct at trial waived on appeal).

(the trial court is presumed to know the law and to apply it in making its decisions).

(trial court is in the best position to address questions of fairness); State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 5 STATE v. GARCIA Decision of the Court 4, 13, (juror “prejudice will not be presumed but must appear affirmatively from the record”) (citation omitted).2 IV.

sumed it was they who had discovered his misconduct, adding a “‘get even’ motive to his proven penchant for ignoring the rules.” 8 STAFFORD v. BURNS et al. Opinion of the Court ¶22 Not every violation of the court’s admonitions requires dismissal of the juror involved, and the trial court is in the best position to determine the effect, if any, of a juror’s misconduct, ().

-14 (1997) (noting we will not presume prejudice where none appears affirmatively in the record).

Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 640 (1974); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 610-11 (1965); 439, 1055 (1986)

¶ 13 (2010) ("We will not reverse a conviction based on speculation or unsupported inference."); -14 (1997) (reviewing court will not presume prejudice where none appears 4 A detective testified that ten grams of methamphetamine is an amount "consistent with sales" rather than for personal use.

-14 (1997); ¶ 14 (App. 2006).

beyond a reasonable doubt that ‘the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known 53 STATE V. GOUDEAU Opinion of the Court that suffering would occur.’” Snelling, 225 Ariz. at 188 ¶ 25, 236 P.3d at 415 ( ).