claim on appeal constitutes waiver in Arizona

2026See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”). 5

2025See ARCAP 13(a)(7); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 297-98 (1989) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”). 10 CONCLUSION ¶38 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

2022See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”). ¶22 Rule 20(a)(1) directs courts to enter a judgment of acquittal “if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” Substantial evidence “is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (quoting State v, Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980)). “[T]he relevant question is whether, after 8 viewing the evidence in the light m

2022“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 200 (1996) (quoting State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423 , 424-25 (1976)).

2022See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”). ¶22 Rule 20(a)(1) directs courts to enter a judgment of acquittal “if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” Substantial evidence “is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (quoting State v, Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980)). “[T]he relevant question is whether, after 8 viewing the evidence in the light m

2022See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”). ¶22 Rule 20(a)(1) directs courts to enter a judgment of acquittal “if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” Substantial evidence “is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (quoting State v, Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980)). “[T]he relevant question is whether, after 8 viewing the evidence in the light m

2019Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, 452 , ¶¶ 20- 21 (App. 2007) (“[A] party may not ‘sit back and not call the trial court’s attention to the lack of a specific finding on a critical issue, and then urge on appeal that mere lack of a finding on that critical issue as a grounds for reversal.’” (quoting Bayless Inv. & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 26 Ariz. App. 265, 271 (1976))); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”).

2017See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”); State v. Herrera, 183 Ariz. 642, 647 (App. 1995) (issues waived on appeal cannot be resurrected in later post-conviction proceeding). ¶7 Nor did the superior court err by denying Tiggs’s motion for transfer.

2017See State v. King, 226 Ariz. 253, 257, ¶ 11 (App. 2011) (failing to develop argument usually results in waiver on appeal); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”).

2015At oral argument, the state asserted for the first time that Forrester may no longer apply in light of Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 47, 59-60 , 112 S.Ct. 466 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991), where the Supreme Court concluded that "a general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy [need not] be set aside if the evidence is inadequate to support conviction as to one of the objects.” However, the parties did not brief this issue.

2015At oral argument, the state asserted for the first time that Forrester may no longer apply in light of Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 47, 59-60 , 112 S.Ct. 466 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991), where the Supreme Court concluded that "a general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy [need not] be set aside if the evidence is inadequate to support conviction as to one of the objects.” However, the parties did not brief this issue.

2012See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 , 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”) Nonetheless we review the preclusion of impeachment for fundamental error because if a defendant is deprived of the chance to present relevant mitigation, “[t]he resulting death sentence cannot stand.” Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); see also Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 284-85 , 124 S.Ct. 2562 , 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004) (noting that, pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, the jury must be able to consider and

2012See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 , 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”) Nonetheless we review the preclusion of impeachment for fundamental error because if a defendant is deprived of the chance to present relevant mitigation, “[t]he resulting death sentence cannot stand.” Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); see also Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 284-85 , 124 S.Ct. 2562 , 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004) (noting that, pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, the jury must be able to consider and

2012See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 , 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”) Nonetheless we review the preclusion of impeachment for fundamental error because if a defendant is deprived of the chance to present relevant mitigation, “[t]he resulting death sentence cannot stand.” Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); see also Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 284-85 , 124 S.Ct. 2562 , 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004) (noting that, pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, the jury must be able to consider and

2012See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 , 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”) Nonetheless we review the preclusion of impeachment for fundamental error because if a defendant is deprived of the chance to present relevant mitigation, “[t]he resulting death sentence cannot stand.” Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); see also Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 284-85 , 124 S.Ct. 2562 , 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004) (noting that, pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, the jury must be able to consider and

1995State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1390 (1989); see also Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.13(c)(1) (appellant’s brief shall include a concise argument containing the party’s contentions, reasons therefor, and necessary supporting citations).

1995State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1390 (1989); see also Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.13(c)(1) (appellant’s brief shall include a concise argument containing the party’s contentions, reasons therefor, and necessary supporting citations).