claim of prosecutorial error in Arizona

2026We therefore use the term “prosecutorial error” when referring to all of McCauley’s claims in Part A. ¶13 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, “a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s [error] so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Murray, 250 Ariz. at 548 ¶ 13 (quoting State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 335 ¶ 46 (2007)).

2025See In re Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458 , 470 ¶ 47 (2020) (courts should avoid characterizing prosecutorial error as misconduct when no ethical violation is alleged); State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 548 ¶ 12 (2021) (cumulative error review is the same for both prosecutorial error and misconduct). ¶33 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s error “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Sanders, 245 Ariz. at 132 ¶ 92 (quoting State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 , 79 ¶ 26 (1998)).

2026We therefore use the term “prosecutorial error” when referring to all of McCauley’s claims in Part A. ¶13 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, “a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s [error] so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Murray, 250 Ariz. at 548 ¶ 13 (quoting State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 335 ¶ 46 (2007)).

2022Specifically, he asserts that during rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor improperly commented on Thompson’s right not to testify and appealed to a manufactured duty owed to the victims’ families. ¶75 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, a defendant must show “that the prosecutor’s [error] so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 548 ¶ 13 (2021) (quoting State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 , 335 ¶ 46 (2007)).

2026We reiterated that a successful claim is one in which the misconduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Id. (quoting Roque, 213 Ariz. at 228 ¶ 152). ¶28 To the extent the court of appeals suggested that a claim of prosecutorial error must be advanced under prong three, that understanding is incorrect.

2026We reiterated that a successful claim is one in which the misconduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Id. (quoting Roque, 213 Ariz. at 228 ¶ 152). ¶28 To the extent the court of appeals suggested that a claim of prosecutorial error must be advanced under prong three, that understanding is incorrect.

2025See In re Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458 , 470 ¶ 47 (2020) (courts should avoid characterizing prosecutorial error as misconduct when no ethical violation is alleged); State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 548 ¶ 12 (2021) (cumulative error review is the same for both prosecutorial error and misconduct). ¶33 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s error “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Sanders, 245 Ariz. at 132 ¶ 92 (quoting State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 , 79 ¶ 26 (1998)).

2023See, e.g., State v. Fierro, 254 Ariz. 35 , __ ¶ 20 (2022) (reviewing a claim that the trial judge issued an incorrect jury instruction for fundamental error); State v. Allen, 253 Ariz. 306 , __ ¶ 13 (2022) (reviewing a claim that the trial judge erroneously admitted witness testimony for fundamental error); State v. Robinson, 253 Ariz. 121 , __ ¶ 64 (2022) (reviewing a claim of prosecutorial error for fundamental error); State v. Thompson, 252 Ariz. 279 , 293 ¶ 46 (2022) (reviewing a claim of a violation 14 STATE v. PEREZ-GUTIERREZ Catlett, J., dissenting of the Sixth Amendment right to an imp

2022To do so, the defendant must demonstrate that (1) prosecutorial error exists; and (2) “a reasonable likelihood exists that the [prosecutorial error] could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” Id. (quoting State v. Anderson (Anderson II), 210 Ariz. 327 , 340 ¶ 45 (2005)). 1.