Cited by

See, ¶ 126 (2022); ¶ 21 (2001); ¶ 29 (1998)

¶128 Sammantha claims that the photographs were “wholly irrelevant” because the cause of death, and the fact that A.D.

¶ 27 (2001); overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 603 (2002).

¶ 27 (2001) (“Trial courts have broad discretion in admitting photographs.”) (citation omitted).

¶21 “Relevant photographs may be received in evidence even though they also have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the person who committed the offense.” ¶ 21 (2001) (citation and quotation omitted).

P. 19.1(d)(3); see also Prince, 226 Ariz. at 534 ¶ 65, 250 P.3d at 1163; State v. Bocharski (Bocharski I), ¶ 64, (“Sentencing recommendations offered by a deceased’s survivors have no relevance in a capital case.”).

¶ 28, (stating that the court’s focus was not on whether a guilty verdict would definitely have been rendered without the admission of gruesome photographs, but whether the guilty verdicts rendered were surely unattributable to the error (citations omitted)).

See, e.g., State v. Bocharski, 200 Ariz. 50, ¶ 43, (instruction made “jurors .

P. 19.1(d)(3); ¶ 64, 29 (“Sentencing recommendations offered by a deceased’s survivors have no relevance in a capital case.”).

t “a capital defendant is entitled to introduce any relevant mitigating evidence that he proffers in support of a sentence less than death”); Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 (1985) (concluding that state must provide indigent defendants with the 6 “basic tools of an adequate defense”); ¶ 61, (noting that “Arizona’s justice system must provide adequate resources to enable indigents to defend themselves in a reasonable way” in capital cases).

See, for example, ¶ 61 , (unique facts of each case determine what is reasonably necessary for indigent to present defense); , (test of constitutionality of search is whether search is reasonable under the circumstances); In re Frank H., 193 Ariz

lesser degree of murder is completely irrelevant to his appeal of the felony murder conviction.” , (holding “[b]ecause specific intent to commit murder is irrelevant to a felony-murder charge,” no abuse of discretion in excluding expert testimony defendant “acted in self-defense caused by paranoid delusions”); , -52 (2001) (any error in court’s refusal to instruct on lesser-included offenses to first-degree murder harmless because jury found defendant guilty of felony murder, which has no lesser

See State v. Bocharski (Bocharski I), ¶ 43, (stating that destruction of evidence was not a violation of due process when “the defendant fails to provide even a hint of what exculpatory evidence there might have been”).

On appeal, this Court affirmed Bocharski’s convictions, State v. Bocharski (Bocharski I), ¶ 68, but reversed the death sentence, concluding that Bocharski received inadequate funding for a mitigation investigation, id.