Cited by

Responding police officers reviewed video surveillance of the attack and took fingerprints from the gas station, which were later identified as 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” –89, –64 (1997) (citation omitted).

Police found the missing piece of the victim’s ear 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” –89, –64 (1997) (citation omitted).

Cotham’s advisory counsel was 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” –89, –64 (1997) (citation omitted).

testified to subsequent sexual assaults that 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” –89, –64 (1997) (citation omitted).

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).2 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” –89, –64 (1997) (citation omitted).

1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the [D]efendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

¶3 As relevant here, during jury selection, the State exercised a peremptory strike of Juror 4, who Torres argued was Hispanic.2 Torres 1 The court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997) (citation omitted).

The police also found a Sawzall saw tool, blades, charger, 1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997) (citation omitted).

1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -464 (1997) (citation omitted).

He pled not guilty, but was convicted by a jury of the armed robbery and aggravated assault 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997) (citation omitted).

1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

Consequently, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated term 16(B) and reinstated Defendant to lifetime 1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).

ounsel called into question the reliability of the testimony of the accomplices, including questioning their motive for testifying, bringing out evidence of agreements they reached with the State and suggesting their memory of 1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997) (citation omitted).

¶13 Indeed, “[t]he underlying principle of our disclosure rules is the avoidance of undue delay or surprise.”

Photographs must not be introduced “for the sole purpose of inflaming the jury,” State v. Gerlaugh, 134 Ariz. 164, 169, but “[t]here is nothing sanitary about murder” and sometimes gruesome photographs properly will be introduced

¶17 Although several photos in this case show skin 7 slippage and discoloration, “[e]ach photograph conveys different, highly relevant information about the crime.”