Cited by

at 687; -44, -75 (1997) (finding forty-five minute detention of blood-smeared defendant, who voluntarily cooperated with police and was not restrained, “no more than that necessary to accomplish a reasonable investigation of the unusual

r. 2005) (holding that initial illegal detention “does not call into question” validity of arrest pursuant to valid warrant; “[w]here the police effectuate an arrest in an illegal manner but nonetheless have probable cause to make the arrest, the proper Fourth Amendment remedy is to exclude only that evidence which is a fruit of the illegality”); (holding that as long as officers possess a valid warrant, the subjective intent of officers is irrelevant).

See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”)

(citation omitted) (noting error is harmless or non-prejudicial when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the jury verdict); , (“[W]e have no difficulty concluding beyond a reasonable doubt by reason of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant ...

State v. Spreitz (Spreitz I)

“This court may therefore properly decline to consider defendant’s constitutional claims.”

(defendant asserting self-defense may introduce evidence of known specific acts of violence by the victim to show he or she “was justifiably apprehensive of the [victim]”); , (habit of victim in refusing to accept rides admissible, habit being a regular or semi-automatic response to a repeated specific situation).

(citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 , 104 S.Ct.

¶125 The admissibility of a potentially inflammatory photograph is determined by examining (1) the relevance of the photograph, (2) its “tendency to incite or inflame the jury,” - 40 - and (3) the “probative value versus potential to cause unfair prejudice.” (quoting Murray, 184 Ariz. at 28, 906 P.2d at 561).

*500 146, (noting that trial court's decisions to admit or exclude evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

A suspect is in custody if “‘under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would feel that he was in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way.’” quoting Carter, 145 Ariz. at 105, 700 P.2d at 492; (“The test used to determine if a person is in custody under a Fifth Amendment analysis is whether the person’s freedom of movement is restricted to the extent it would be tantamount to formal arrest.”).

¶70 Photographs of a victim’s body are always relevant because “the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” ( ).

Cf. State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129, 142, (stating that court need not remand if abuse of discretion in admitting photograph was harmless).

7 “[AJbsent a clear abuse of discretion” by the trial court, we will not “second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence.” , ( , ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

5 Moreover, “a defendant may waive speedy trial rights by not objecting to the denial of speedy trial in a timely manner.” -96 (App. 1998) (defendant not entitled to dismissal for Rule 8 violation absent showing of prejudice).

(A Rule 8 ruling “will be upheld unless an appellant demonstrates that the court abused its discretion and that prejudice resulted.”).

¶ 40 We begin from the premise that “any photograph of the deceased in any murder case [is relevant] because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” , (quoting Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 288 , 660 P.2d at 1215 ).