defendant establishes fundamental error in Arizona

2020“If the defendant establishes fundamental error under prongs one or two, he must make a separate showing of prejudice, which also ‘involves a fact-intensive inquiry.’” Id. (quoting Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 26 ).

2020“If the defendant establishes fundamental error under prongs one or two, he must make a separate showing of prejudice, which also ‘involves a fact-intensive inquiry.’” Id. (quoting Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 26 ).

2024“Prejudice is a fact- intensive inquiry, the outcome of which will depend . . . upon the type of error that occurred and the facts of a particular case.” State v. Dickinson, 233 Ariz. 527, 531, ¶ 13 (App. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2024“Prejudice is a fact-intensive inquiry, the outcome of which will depend . . . upon the type of error that occurred and the facts of a particular case.” State v. Dickinson, 233 Ariz. 527, 531, ¶ 13 (App. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2026Id. at 144, ¶ 31. ¶44 “Profile evidence tends to show that a defendant possesses one or more of an informal compilation of characteristics or an abstract of characteristics typically displayed by persons engaged in a particular kind of activity.” State v. Ketchner, 236 Ariz. 262, 264, ¶ 15 (2014) (citations 11 STATE v. SICARI Decision of the Court omitted).

2025He cites State v. Holsinger, 124 Ariz. 18 (1979), for the proposition that “[a] prosecutor may not accomplish with insinuation what it cannot do directly.” In Holsinger, the court concluded the prosecutor’s questioning “ha[d] no basis in fact” and was improper because the “question clearly implied that the defendant had a long criminal record when, in fact, she did not.” 124 Ariz. at 21 . ¶22 But the situation is different when prosecutors have a reasonable basis for their questions. “[P]rosecutor[s] ha[ve] latitude to explore any bias that [they] ha[ve] a reasonable basis to believe exist[s].

2024“A defendant establishes fundamental error by showing that (1) the error went to the foundation of the case, (2) the error took from the defendant a right essential to his defense, or (3) the error was so egregious that he could not possibly have received a fair trial.” Id. at 142, ¶ 21 . ¶15 As explained by our supreme court, a “defendant is guilty when convicted and if he chooses not to publicly admit his guilt, that is irrelevant to a sentencing determination.” State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 162 (1984).

2024However, “[i]f a defendant admits his guilt, [it] can be used as additional mitigating evidence, provided the defendant is truly remorseful 5 STATE v. NUNEZ Decision of the Court for his crime.” Id.

2022“A defendant establishes fundamental error by showing that (1) the error went to the foundation of the case, (2) the error took from the defendant a right essential to his defense, or (3) the error was so egregious that he could not possibly have received a fair trial.” Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 142, ¶ 21. ¶17 Here, the indictment charged Wilkins with one count of organized retail theft, alleging that on or about October 17, 2019, Wilkins: acting alone or in conjunction with another person, did use an artifice, instrument, container, device or other article to facilitate the removal of merchandi

2022See also State v. Kelly, 149 Ariz. 115, 117 (App. 1986) (Error resulting from a duplicitous indictment could be cured with an instruction informing jurors they must unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt which (or both) of two acts the defendant committed). ¶19 In its final jury instructions, the superior court instructed the jurors on multiple acts: The defendant is accused of having committed the crime of Organized Retail Theft.

2020State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 459, ¶ 145 (2004).

2019Id. ¶19 Though generally inadmissible, hearsay evidence admitted without objection is "competent evidence admissible for all purposes." State v. McGann, 132 Ariz. 296, 298-99 (1982); see Ariz. R.

2019Because mistrials raise issues of double jeopardy, a party 5 STATE v. CASTILLO Decision of the Court must ordinarily ask for a mistrial, State v. Laird, 186 Ariz. 203, 207 (1996), and the superior court must find a “manifest necessity” to declare one, State v. Dickinson, 242 Ariz. 120, 124 , ¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2017). ¶13 Castillo argues that the now-complained-of testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Arizona Rule of Evidence 403, which required the superior court to declare a mistrial sua sponte.

2019Cf. State v. Klokic, 219 Ariz. 241, 244, ¶ 13 (App. 2008) (noting defendant preserved issue regarding duplicitous charge by requesting trial court take one of two curative measures). ¶9 Our supreme court has recently described a defendant’s burden on fundamental error review as follows: A defendant establishes fundamental error by showing that (1) the error went to the foundation of the case, (2) the error 3 STATE v. CREWS Decision of the Court took from the defendant a right essential to his defense, or (3) the error was so egregious that he could not possibly have received a fair trial.

2015Id. at ¶ 26. ¶14 “The trial court has considerable discretion in resolving motions to amend an indictment.” State v. Delgado, 174 Ariz. 252, 254 , 848 P.2d 337, 339 (App. 1993).

2015Id. at ¶ 26. ¶14 “The trial court has considerable discretion in resolving motions to amend an indictment.” State v. Delgado, 174 Ariz. 252, 254 , 848 P.2d 337, 339 (App. 1993).