Cited by

“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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.’” ¶ 46, ( ¶ 26, ).

“State submits the defendant was at Buffalo Wild Wings watching the game.” But even assuming this argument was neither a reasonable inference from the evidence nor within jurors’ common knowledge, Juarez has not established that the remarks “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Morris, 215 Ariz. at 335, ¶ 46; ¶ 26 (1998) (to require reversal, prosecutorial misconduct must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeated the entire t

¶25 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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.” ¶ 152 (2006) ( ¶ 26 (1998)).

We reject Devorce’s apparent argument about prosecutorial misconduct because to the extent the comments were inappropriate, they did not “permeate[] the entire atmosphere of the trial.” ¶ 26 (1998) (citations and quotations omitted).

¶35 Although prosecutors have wide latitude in closing argument, “[j]ury argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is [] improper.” ¶ 59 (1998)

¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 26 (1998)).

3 STATE v. MYERS Decision of the Court that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” ¶ 46, ( ¶ 26, ).

prevail on his claim, a defendant 8 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court must demonstrate that “the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 26 (1998)) (internal quotations omitted).

¶193 “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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.” State v. (Alex V.) Hughes, ¶ 26, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Even assuming the nature of the violation is fundamental, ¶ 63 (1998) (noting an improper comment regarding the invocation of the privilege against self- incrimination, whether direct or indirect, violates state and federal constitutional law) (); Corrales, 138 Ariz. at 591, “[p]rosecutorial misconduct is harmless error if

¶ 32 (1998) (“Prosecutorial misconduct is harmless error if we can find beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”).

¶40 “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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, (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)).

“Failure to object waives an issue on appeal absent fundamental error.” ¶ 58 (1998).

“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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, (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)).

(“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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.’”) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)).

¶28 Second, the late disclosure cannot be said to rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct because it did not “so infect[] 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)); ¶ 40 (2013) (“We will reverse a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct only if (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the prosecutor's misconduct c

To establish the second prong, 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)).

¶15 “The prosecutor who comments on defendant’s failure to testify violates both constitutional and statutory law.” ¶ 63 (1998).

¶51 “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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.’” quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974).

-09, -72 (1984) (double jeopardy bars retrial if mistrial was caused by the prosecutor’s intentional misconduct); ¶ 26, (cumulative error doctrine is recognized in context of prosecutorial misconduct because “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.”).4 And although the judge twic

–79, ¶¶ 25-26, –91 (1998).