Cited by

Stated differently, when “graphic and disturbing” images show nothing “that could not be made abundantly and equally clear” through other evidence, the images are “at best cumulative and at worst offered in an attempt to incense the jurors.” ¶ 30 (2002).

See, ¶ 31 (1999) (finding right to counsel waived when a defendant initially requested a lawyer, but subsequently volunteered information after saying “I don’t see why I shouldn’t just tell you”); –6 ¶¶ 10–14 (2002), supplemented, –49 ¶¶ 10–14 (2003) (finding right to counsel waived where a defendant requested counsel but returned and confessed an hour later and after speaking with his mother); ¶¶ 15–17 (2013) (finding right to counsel waived where a defe

–88 (1983) (finding color photos of charred body, damaged skull, and exposed 5 STATE v. MEDINA Decision of the Court brain matter inadmissible); –09, ¶¶ 61, 63 (2004) (finding crime scene photos depicting charred and decomposing bodies inadmissible); ¶¶ 30–33 (2002) (finding photos of a minor victim’s genital area and anus inadmissible).

¶ 33 (2002) (error was harmless because the jury made reasoned decisions and acquitted on one of four counts); (harmless error to exclude a statement when the jury acquitted defendant of the charge to which statement would have been relevant); State v. Davis, 11

We review the superior court’s determination of voluntariness for abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (2002), and consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the challenged confession.

(concluding the decision to acquit the defendant of certain charges “demonstrate[d] the jury’s careful and proper consideration of the evidence”); ¶ 33 (2002) (finding evidentiary error harmless and noting, “the jury actually acquitted Defendant of one of the sexual assault counts, suggesting that the jurors made reasoned decisions based on the evidence presented, rather than lashing out in an emotional response to the photographs”).

¶14 Rusing acknowledges that the Arizona Supreme Court has not held that recordings are required as a matter of due process, noting the importance of recording a suspect’s statements, and mentioning that both Alaska and Minnesota have required recording of custodial interrogations.

“Photographs are relevant when they aid the jury in understanding an issue in the case.” ¶ 28, (citation omitted).

¶ 27 , (blood tests); ¶ 9 , (urine and breath tests).

¶¶ 18–19, (holding that oral testimony of confession, rather than audio recording of confession, was admissible at trial to prove defendant confessed); cf. People v. Hari, 843 N.E.2d 349, 361 (Ill.

(ruling on motion to suppress not disturbed on appeal absent “clear and manifest error”); see also State v. Jones, 203 * (equating clear-error standard with abuse-of-discretion standard).

The “key to this rule is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’” ¶ 37, ( ); ¶ 23, this case, the State produced all calls taped by the detectives and disclosed a

See Trostle, 191 Ariz. at 14 , 951 P.2d at 879 ; , (explicit statement waiving Miranda not required).

¶ 27 , see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 , 86 S.Ct.

State v. Antoin Jones (Antoin Jones I), ¶ 31

Right to counsel ¶25 A trial court’s decision to admit a defendant’s statement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8, based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, State v. Hyde, 11

See generally Black’s Law Dictionary 582 (8th ed. 2004) ("An error that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record.”); ¶ 8 , (clear and manifest error is "shorthand” for abuse of discretion); , (manifest error is a decision based on an "erroneous and improper theory”); Schinner v. Schinner, 143 Wis.2d 81 , 420 N.W.2d 381, 385-86 (Ct.App.1988) (ma

A ¶22 When reviewing a trial court’s determination on the admissibility of a defendant’s statements, this Court must determine whether there has been clear and manifest error.6 ¶ 8, ( ).

see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct.

¶ 8, (“Clear and manifest error .

¶ 8 , opinion supplemented by

State v. (Antoin) Jones, ¶ 8, opinion supplemented by ___ Ariz. ___

CAPITAL SENTENCING ISSUES ¶ 84 -12, ¶¶ 39-45 , -284 (2002), this opinion is not a final disposition of the case.

CAPITAL SENTENCING ISSUES ¶ 27 , this opinion is not a final disposition of the case.