Cited by

“[T]he length of the delay is the least important 4 STATE v. COTA Decision of the Court [factor], while the prejudice to defendant is the most significant.” -40 (1997).

the false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.”

(finding no prejudice where the “[a]ppellant’s own confession proved the elements of all the crimes charged”); (“[W]e have no difficulty concluding beyond a reasonable doubt by reason of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, including, most importantly, his own uncoerced confession, that the jury would have found him guilty without the [challenged evidence].”)

See Rankovich, 159 Ariz. at 120

However, Aschenbrenner did not raise this issue until his motion for new trial, therefore this claim is subject only to fundamental error review.5 (stating objection on one ground does not preserve a different evidentiary theory presented for the first time on appeal); ¶ 14, (“By failing to timely raise an issue at trial, .

“[D]elays agreed to by defense counsel are binding on a defendant, even if made without the defendant’s consent.” (citations omitted).

(describing Rule 8 as a procedural right, not a fundamental one, which cannot be “a shield by which the accused may avoid trial and possible punishment by taking advantage of loopholes in the law or arithmetic errors”).

–44, –75 (1997) (holding that forty-five minute Terry detention was reasonable under circumstances); see also Cruz- Mata, 138 Ariz. at 373, 674 P.2d at 1371 (holding that interrogation in police station for one and one-half hours did not amount to Miranda custody)

(finding abuse of discretion in admission of autopsy photographs showing decomposition and insect activity on the body).

“[A]ny photograph of the deceased in any murder case [is relevant] because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 340, ¶ 40 ().

“[A] defendant may waive speedy trial rights by not objecting to the denial of speedy trial in a timely manner.” (citations omitted).

(“Absent a clear abuse of discretion this court will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.”).

Because waiver applies to untimely objections on constitutional grounds as well, we therefore decline to consider Defendants’ constitutional claim.

“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, this court will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.” (internal punctuation omitted).

(finding a five-year delay presumptively prejudicial).

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972)