cumulative error in Arizona

2026“Cumulative error warrants reversal only if [error] was ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeated the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” Id. at 515 ¶ 134 (quoting Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 79 ¶ 26) (citation modified). ¶83 In the cumulative error analysis, McCauley adds new allegations of prosecutorial error.

2026“Cumulative error warrants reversal only if [error] was ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeated the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” Id. at 515 ¶ 134 (quoting Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 79 ¶ 26) (citation modified). ¶83 In the cumulative error analysis, McCauley adds new allegations of prosecutorial error.

2020Compare State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 , 228 ¶ 155 (2006) (stating that ”even if there was no error . . . an incident may nonetheless contribute to a finding of persistent and pervasive misconduct”) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 , 267 ¶ 14 (2017) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 140 ¶¶ 15–16 (2018), with State v. Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 367 , 388 ¶ 88 (2018) (considering only claims that constitute error in a cumulative error review).

2013Cumulative error warrants reversal only if misconduct was “so pronounced and persistent that it permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial,” id. (quoting State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 611 , 832 P.2d 593, 628 (1992)), indicating that “the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant,” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 228 ¶ 155, 141 P.3d at 403 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶135 Payne has not shown misconduct that permeated the trial and infected it with unfairness, and so we reject his claim of cumulative

2017Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21 , 926 P.2d 468, 488 (1996), as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” See also State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996); State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 508 , 815 P.2d 869, 877 (1991).

2017Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21 , 926 P.2d 468, 488 (1996), as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” See also State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996); State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 508 , 815 P.2d 869, 877 (1991).

2017Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21 , 926 P.2d 468, 488 (1996), as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” See also State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996); State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 508 , 815 P.2d 869, 877 (1991).

2017Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21 , 926 P.2d 468, 488 (1996), as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” See also State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996); State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 508 , 815 P.2d 869, 877 (1991).

1993We note preliminarily that the doctrine of cumulative error is not recognized in Arizona, State v. Prince, 160 Ariz. 268, 274 , 772 P.2d 1121, 1127 (1989), absent related errors, State v. Filipov, 118 Ariz. 319, 323, 324, 325 , 576 P.2d 507, 511, 512, 513 (App.1978). 3 The defendant first contends that the prosecutor improperly expressed his personal belief about her guilt when he stated the following during rebuttal argument: [Defense counsel] continues to just tell you, oh, all those facts aren’t in court.

1993We note preliminarily that the doctrine of cumulative error is not recognized in Arizona, State v. Prince, 160 Ariz. 268, 274 , 772 P.2d 1121, 1127 (1989), absent related errors, State v. Filipov, 118 Ariz. 319, 323, 324, 325 , 576 P.2d 507, 511, 512, 513 (App.1978). 3 The defendant first contends that the prosecutor improperly expressed his personal belief about her guilt when he stated the following during rebuttal argument: [Defense counsel] continues to just tell you, oh, all those facts aren’t in court.

2024In other words, the cumulative error must have “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Robinson, 253 Ariz. 121 , ¶ 64 (quoting Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, ¶ 106 ); see also State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, ¶ 26 (1998) (reversal requires conduct that “permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial” (quoting State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 611 (1992))). ¶65 We disagree with Romero that the cumulative effect of the prosecutorial error detailed above “so infected the trial with unfairness” that it amounted to a denial of due process requiring reve

2013Cumulative error warrants reversal only if misconduct was “so pronounced and persistent that it permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial,” id. (quoting State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 611 , 832 P.2d 593, 628 (1992)), indicating that “the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant,” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 228 ¶ 155, 141 P.3d at 403 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶135 Payne has not shown misconduct that permeated the trial and infected it with unfairness, and so we reject his claim of cumulative

2017Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21 , 926 P.2d 468, 488 (1996), as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” See also State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996); State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 508 , 815 P.2d 869, 877 (1991).

2017Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21 , 926 P.2d 468, 488 (1996), as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” See also State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996); State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 508 , 815 P.2d 869, 877 (1991).

2025“Cumulative error requires reversal only when misconduct is ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” Id. (quoting Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, ¶ 134 ).

2025“Cumulative error requires reversal only when misconduct is ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” Id. (quoting Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, ¶ 134 ).

2025Thus, he fails to establish a colorable claim. ¶14 Finally, Earl argues “that the cumulative effect of acts of ineffective assistance amounts to a due process violation.” “This Court has not recognized the cumulative error doctrine for [ineffective assistance of counsel] claims.” Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 191 ¶ 69.

2025See Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 191–92 ¶ 69.

2020Compare State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 , 228 ¶ 155 (2006) (stating that ”even if there was no error . . . an incident may nonetheless contribute to a finding of persistent and pervasive misconduct”) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 , 267 ¶ 14 (2017) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 140 ¶¶ 15–16 (2018), with State v. Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 367 , 388 ¶ 88 (2018) (considering only claims that constitute error in a cumulative error review).

2018If any “incidents contributing to a finding of misconduct are identified, we must evaluate their cumulative effect on the trial.” State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, 228, ¶ 155 (2006), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 (2017).

1998See id. at 466-68, 862 P.2d at 226-28 . ¶30 State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358 , 586 P.2d 203 (App.1978), involved a prosecutorial misconduct claim that was as weak as those in Dickens and Duzan, but Floyd implicitly recognized the cumulative error doctrine while denying the claim, as follows: Ultimately, citing State v. Filipov, 118 Ariz. 319 , 576 P.2d 507 (App.1978), and State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz.App. 133 , 516 P.2d 589 (1973), appellant urges that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s statements requires reversal if the statements individually do not.

1998See id. at 466-68, 862 P.2d at 226-28 . ¶30 State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358 , 586 P.2d 203 (App.1978), involved a prosecutorial misconduct claim that was as weak as those in Dickens and Duzan, but Floyd implicitly recognized the cumulative error doctrine while denying the claim, as follows: Ultimately, citing State v. Filipov, 118 Ariz. 319 , 576 P.2d 507 (App.1978), and State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz.App. 133 , 516 P.2d 589 (1973), appellant urges that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s statements requires reversal if the statements individually do not.

2022We consider whether “persistent and pervasive” error occurred and whether the “cumulative effect of the [errors] shows that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.” State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 339, ¶ 67 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560, 568, ¶ 35 (2010).

2016Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568-69, ¶ 26 , 115 P.3d at 608-09 . ¶42 Ordinarily, Arizona does not recognize the cumulative error doctrine because “something that is not prejudicial error in and of itself does not become such error when coupled with something else that is not prejudicial error.” State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996).

2016Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568-69, ¶ 26 , 115 P.3d at 608-09 . ¶42 Ordinarily, Arizona does not recognize the cumulative error doctrine because “something that is not prejudicial error in and of itself does not become such error when coupled with something else that is not prejudicial error.” State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996).

2015See Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 108-09 , 677 P.2d 261, 271-72 (1984) (double jeopardy bars retrial if mistrial was caused by the prosecutor’s intentional misconduct); cf. State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 79, ¶ 26 , 969 P.2d 1184, 1191 (1998) (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 twice instructed the jury that the attorneys’ arguments were not evidence

2015See Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 108-09 , 677 P.2d 261, 271-72 (1984) (double jeopardy bars retrial if mistrial was caused by the prosecutor’s intentional misconduct); cf. State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 79, ¶ 26 , 969 P.2d 1184, 1191 (1998) (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 twice instructed the jury that the attorneys’ arguments were not evidence

1998See id. at 21 , 926 P.2d at 488 . ¶29 In Duzan, the court stated, ‘We note preliminarily that the doctrine of cumulative error is not recognized in Arizona ... absent related errors.” Id. at 466, 862 P.2d at 226 (citations omitted).

1998See id. at 466-68, 862 P.2d at 226-28 . ¶30 State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358 , 586 P.2d 203 (App.1978), involved a prosecutorial misconduct claim that was as weak as those in Dickens and Duzan, but Floyd implicitly recognized the cumulative error doctrine while denying the claim, as follows: Ultimately, citing State v. Filipov, 118 Ariz. 319 , 576 P.2d 507 (App.1978), and State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz.App. 133 , 516 P.2d 589 (1973), appellant urges that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s statements requires reversal if the statements individually do not.

1998See id. at 466-68, 862 P.2d at 226-28 . ¶30 State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358 , 586 P.2d 203 (App.1978), involved a prosecutorial misconduct claim that was as weak as those in Dickens and Duzan, but Floyd implicitly recognized the cumulative error doctrine while denying the claim, as follows: Ultimately, citing State v. Filipov, 118 Ariz. 319 , 576 P.2d 507 (App.1978), and State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz.App. 133 , 516 P.2d 589 (1973), appellant urges that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s statements requires reversal if the statements individually do not.

1998See id. at 466-68, 862 P.2d at 226-28 . ¶30 State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358 , 586 P.2d 203 (App.1978), involved a prosecutorial misconduct claim that was as weak as those in Dickens and Duzan, but Floyd implicitly recognized the cumulative error doctrine while denying the claim, as follows: Ultimately, citing State v. Filipov, 118 Ariz. 319 , 576 P.2d 507 (App.1978), and State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz.App. 133 , 516 P.2d 589 (1973), appellant urges that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s statements requires reversal if the statements individually do not.

1996See State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 487 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 117 S.Ct. 150 , 136 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996).