Cited by

(“The legislature may establish a sentencing scheme in which an element of a crime could also be used for enhancement and aggravation purposes.”).

The superior court is “presumed to know the law and apply it in making [its] decisions,” (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002)), including its obligation to consider “all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity,” Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1748 (2016) (quoting Snyder, 552

¶ 19 (App. 2011) (“Having decided to admit the testimony pursuant to Rule 404(b), the superior court necessarily concluded the testimony constituted clear and convincing evidence of the act.” (citation omitted)); (presuming trial judges know the law and apply it in making their decisions (citations omitted)).

We will not reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct unless the conduct is “so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” ().

Thus, we presume that the court understood the law in denying the motion for a new trial.3 (“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.”) (citations omitted).

“[A] defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” ¶ 26 (1998) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)); (stating that, to justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial’” (citations omitted)).

To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).

In any event, Cryer chose not to testify at trial and therefore “waive[d] his right to challenge the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction.” (citations omitted).

To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).

5 STATE v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court Reversal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct requires that the conduct be “so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” (citations omitted).

¶6 Because the fact finder, the jury, is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses after direct and cross-examination, ¶ 22, we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal

To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).

To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).

Misconduct can occur if a prosecutor makes statements that call a jury’s attention to matters it “was not justified in considering in determining its verdict[.]”

To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).

“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and apply it in making their decisions.” (internal quotes omitted).

To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).