reasonable doubt error in Arizona

2026Harmless error review requires the State to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” Id. ¶13 Rhone claims the court erred because the State failed to: (1) refresh Brian’s recollection, (2) indicate it would seek to impeach Brian with his prior statements and (3) disclose that it would be attempting to impeach Brian via the detective’s testimony.

2026“Harmless error 3 STATE v. COWAN Decision of the Court review places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 18 (citation omitted). ¶12 “To preserve an argument for review, the defendant must make a sufficient argument to allow a trial court to rule on the issue.” State v. Kinney, 225 Ariz. 550, 554, ¶ 7 (App. 2010). “[A]n objection on one ground does not preserve the issue [for appeal] on another ground.” State v. Lopez, 217 Ariz. 433, 434, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶13 Cowan obje

2025“We must be confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the jury’s judgment.” Id. (quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 (1993)). ¶25 We disagree with Guevara-Enriquez’s claim that the “DNA evidence was central to the convictions.” M.R. provided direct testimony identifying Guevara-Enriquez as the perpetrator and describing the details of the sexual offenses.

2024Error is harmless if this court can say beyond a reasonable doubt the error “did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” Id.

2018Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. at 286 ¶ 126; see also State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582 , 585 ¶ 11 (2009) (“A reviewing court will affirm a conviction despite the error if it is harmless, that is, if the state, in light of all of the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). ¶142 The jury found two aggravators.

2018Error is harmless if the State, “in light of all of the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 11 (2009) (citations omitted). ¶11 Applying this standard here, even assuming that the detective’s testimony was improper, any error was harmless.

2025State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 138, ¶ 1 (2018). ¶11 Recognizing the critical role the reasonable doubt standard plays in securing a defendant’s due process rights, along with the difficulty 4 STATE v. CABRET Decision of the Court in defining the concept of reasonable doubt, in Portillo, 182 Ariz. at 596 , our supreme court adopted a jury instruction that “most fairly and accurately conveys the meaning of reasonable doubt”: The state has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2025See id. at 364 (holding “that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged”); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993) (explaining that the Fifth and 5 STATE v. CABRET Decision of the Court Sixth Amendments require a jury to determine the State has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). ¶13 Consistent with these principles, our supreme court has specifically instructed courts and parties on how to describe the reasonable doubt standard, Portillo,

2024This standard of review “places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 18 (2005); see also State v. Glissendorf, 235 Ariz. 147, ¶ 23 (2014) (once defendant has shown error, burden shifts to state to prove error harmless); State v. Anthony, 218 Ariz. 439, ¶ 39 (2008) (state has burden of convincing appellate court that “guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error” (quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 (1993))).

2017See State v. Anthony, 218 Ariz. 439, 446, ¶ 39 (2008) (“The State has the burden of convincing us that any error was harmless.”); State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005) (noting harmless error analysis, applicable where a timely objection was improperly overruled, “places the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”). ¶14 Garcia admitted, both during his police interrogation and at trial, that he shot at the Tahoe multiple times, knowing it was occupied by several people.

2024See State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476, 486, ¶ 38 (2008) (quoting State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, 580-81, ¶ 39 (2000)) (We review hearsay violations for harmless error, and error is harmless “when the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the verdict.”).

2022But the State contends “even assuming that the challenged testimony was hearsay, it was cumulative,” and thus the error is harmless. ¶12 In a criminal case, erroneously admitted evidence is harmless if “the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error 4 STATE v. VILLAGOMEZ Decision of the Court did not impact the verdict.” Bocharski, 218 Ariz. at 486 , ¶ 38 (quoting State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, 580, ¶ 39 (2000)). ¶13 The inadmissible hearsay evidence was cumulative and did not impact the verdict.

2021See State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 335, ¶ 44 (2007) (“An error is harmless if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”) (cleaned up) (citing State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557, 565, ¶ 18 (2003)).

2019An error is harmless if the State demonstrates “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005); see also State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 , 565–66, ¶ 18 (2003) (stating harmless error analysis is applied to erroneous jury instructions).

2025When a defendant objects at trial, the court conducts a harmless error review in which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, 555 P.3d 537, 553 (2024) (quoting State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 , 567 ¶ 18 (2005)).

2025When a defendant objects at trial, the court conducts a harmless error review in 3 STATE v. BETRUE Decision of the Court which the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, 555 P.3d 537, 553 (2024) (quoting State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 , 567 ¶ 18 (2005)).

2026See Paz, 256 Ariz. at 401 ¶ 37; cf. Davolt, 207 Ariz. at 209 ¶ 64 (under the criminal standard for harmless error, articulated as whether it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the jury’s verdict, the improper admission of graphic photographs did not require reversal given the other evidence of guilt); Bocharski, 200 Ariz. at 56 - 57¶¶ 28-34 (same); Spreitz, 190 Ariz. at 142 (same).

2015See State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 205, ¶ 39 , 84 P.3d 456, 470 (2004) (noting that error is harmless when “the reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict”) The record shows that, even without the exhibits, sufficient evidence was presented to terminate Mother’s parental rights. ¶ 13 It is uncontested that Child was in an out of home placement for longer than nine months, and two DCS caseworkers testified that Mother, despite being provided reunification services, neglected to remedy the circumstances causing Child’s removal.

2026See State v. Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. 404 , 407–08 ¶ 16 (1999) (“By failing to give the [lesser included offense instruction], the trial court denied appellant ‘a right essential to his defense’ and affected the ‘very foundation of [his] theory of defense.’” (second alteration in original)); see also State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 551 ¶ 25 (2021) (“By inviting the jury to circumvent the reasonable-doubt standard and consequently undermining Defendants’ constitutional rights and safeguards, the prosecutor deprived Defendants of an ‘essential right’ necessary to rebut the State’s case.”). ¶24 Hip

2025In that case, the court found that a single misstatement of the reasonable doubt standard constituted fundamental, prejudicial error when the prosecutor suggested to the jury that the State had met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt if they thought “one or both defendants might be guilty.” Murray, 250 Ariz. at 547, ¶ 6 (emphasis added).

2022The State bears the burden and must show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the jury’s judgment.” Id.; see also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (An error is harmless if it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error . . . did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”). ¶25 The principle underlying the fundamental-harmless dichotomy is whether a defendant adequately and timely raised an issue before the superior court.

2017The erroneous instruction was not harmless, see Dann, 205 Ariz. at 565, ¶ 18 (“An error is harmless if it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’”) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)), and Macias’ convictions and sentences for sexual assault and sexual abuse are therefore vacated.

2025See id. at 364 (holding “that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged”); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993) (explaining that the Fifth and 5 STATE v. CABRET Decision of the Court Sixth Amendments require a jury to determine the State has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). ¶13 Consistent with these principles, our supreme court has specifically instructed courts and parties on how to describe the reasonable doubt standard, Portillo,

2025“We must be confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the jury’s judgment.” Id. (quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 (1993)). ¶25 We disagree with Guevara-Enriquez’s claim that the “DNA evidence was central to the convictions.” M.R. provided direct testimony identifying Guevara-Enriquez as the perpetrator and describing the details of the sexual offenses.

2005See State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, ¶ 39 , 12 P.3d 796, 805 (2000) ("[E]rroneously admitted evidence is harmless in a criminal case only when the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the verdict."); State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1980) (improper rehabilitation of witness with hearsay evidence not harmless error); State v. Ruelas, 174 Ariz. 37, 44 , 846 P.2d 850, 857 (App.1992) (erroneous admission of prejudicial hearsay evidence not harmless).

2005See State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, ¶ 39 , 12 P.3d 796, 805 (2000) ("[E]rroneously admitted evidence is harmless in a criminal case only when the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the verdict."); State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1980) (improper rehabilitation of witness with hearsay evidence not harmless error); State v. Ruelas, 174 Ariz. 37, 44 , 846 P.2d 850, 857 (App.1992) (erroneous admission of prejudicial hearsay evidence not harmless).

2025See id. at 364 (holding “that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged”); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993) (explaining that the Fifth and 5 STATE v. CABRET Decision of the Court Sixth Amendments require a jury to determine the State has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). ¶13 Consistent with these principles, our supreme court has specifically instructed courts and parties on how to describe the reasonable doubt standard, Portillo,

2017The reasonable doubt standard requires evidence sufficient- to satisfy each element of the crime and to convince a fact-finder of the defendant’s guilt “with utmost certainty.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). ¶ 29 As to count 1, viewing the trial in its entirety, the state used the officers’ statements to paint Escalante’s actions as those of a drag trafficker.

2010State v. Lundstrom, 161 Ariz. 141, 150 , 776 P.2d 1067, 1076 (1989) (citation omitted) (noting error is harmless or non-prejudicial when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the jury verdict); see also State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129, 142 , 945 P.2d 1260, 1273 (1997) (“[W]e have no difficulty concluding beyond a reasonable doubt by reason of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant ... that the jury would have found him guilty without the photographs.”).

2010State v. Lundstrom, 161 Ariz. 141, 150 , 776 P.2d 1067, 1076 (1989) (citation omitted) (noting error is harmless or non-prejudicial when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the jury verdict); see also State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129, 142 , 945 P.2d 1260, 1273 (1997) (“[W]e have no difficulty concluding beyond a reasonable doubt by reason of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant ... that the jury would have found him guilty without the photographs.”).

2026“Failure to permit the jury to consider this evidence under a reckless manslaughter instruction removed from the jury the ‘option of convicting on a . . . less drastic alternative’ than either first[] or second[]degree murder, and precluded the appellant from receiving ‘the full benefit of the reasonable-doubt standard.’” Id. at 407 ¶ 13 (quoting State v. Celaya, 135 Ariz. 248, 253 (1983)).

2023“Giving a lesser-included offense instruction mitigates that risk.” Id. ¶29 By not allowing the jurors to consider reckless manslaughter, the court denied them the “‘option of convicting on a . . . less drastic alternative’ than . . . second-degree murder, and precluded [Estevez] from receiving ‘the full benefit of the reasonable-doubt standard.’” Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. at 407 , ¶ 13 (quoting State v. Celaya, 135 Ariz. 248, 253 (1983)).

2025State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 335, ¶ 44 (2007) (“An error is harmless if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” (cleaned up)).

2021We note, however, that prosecutors should heed the lesson that dilution of the reasonable-doubt standard may have consequences for the outcomes of their cases, and potentially their standing with the Bar. ¶13 Turning to the inquiry here, “[t]o prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 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.” State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 , 335 ¶ 46 (2007) (quoting State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 , 79 ¶ 26 (1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019Harmless error is not grounds for reversal; an error is harmless when “the reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Alice M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 70 , 73 ¶ 12 (App. 2015).

2015See Alice M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 70, 73, ¶ 12 , 345 P.3d 125, 128 (App. 2015) (noting that even if juvenile court erred in admitting disputed exhibits, the error was harmless); see also State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 205, ¶ 39 , 84 P.3d 456, 470 (2004) (noting that error is harmless when “the reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict”).

2019“A constitutional 4 STATE v. VALENZUELA Decision of the Court error is harmless if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the verdict of the jury.” Id.

2016See State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 11 , 208 P.3d 233, 236 (2009) (error is harmless “if the state, in light of all of the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”) (quotations and citations omitted); State v. Montes, 136 Ariz. 491, 497 , 667 P.2d 191, 197 (1983) (“Statements obtained without the benefit of Miranda warnings, unlawful but not involuntary, are subject to the harmless error rule.”) (citation omitted). ¶7 Here, aside from Moreno’s statement, the State, through the testimony of several witnesses, presente

2002The trial court gave the reasonable doubt instruction approved in State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592 , 898 P.2d 970 (1995), and upheld in State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. 408 , 418 ¶ 30, 984 P.2d 16 , 26 ¶ 30 (1999).

2002The trial court gave the reasonable doubt instruction approved in State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592 , 898 P.2d 970 (1995), and upheld in State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. 408 , 418 ¶ 30, 984 P.2d 16 , 26 ¶ 30 (1999).

2025See, e.g., State v. Forde, 233 Ariz. 543, 565, ¶ 86 (2014); State v. Dann, 220 Ariz. 351, 365, ¶ 65 (2009); State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431 , 440–41, ¶¶ 49–50 (2003) (collecting cases).

2010See State v. Dann, 220 Ariz. 351, ¶ 65 , 207 P.3d 604, 618 (2009) (observing Arizona Supreme Court has "repeatedly rejected challenges to the Portillo instruction”). 20 .

2026State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476, 486, ¶ 38 (2008) (“Erroneously admitted evidence is harmless in a criminal case only when the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the verdict.” (citation modified)).

2024See State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476, 486, ¶ 38 (2008) (quoting State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, 580-81, ¶ 39 (2000)) (We review hearsay violations for harmless error, and error is harmless “when the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the verdict.”).

2026See State v. Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. 404 , 407–08 ¶ 16 (1999) (“By failing to give the [lesser included offense instruction], the trial court denied appellant ‘a right essential to his defense’ and affected the ‘very foundation of [his] theory of defense.’” (second alteration in original)); see also State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 551 ¶ 25 (2021) (“By inviting the jury to circumvent the reasonable-doubt standard and consequently undermining Defendants’ constitutional rights and safeguards, the prosecutor deprived Defendants of an ‘essential right’ necessary to rebut the State’s case.”). ¶24 Hip

2023“Giving a lesser-included offense instruction mitigates that risk.” Id. ¶29 By not allowing the jurors to consider reckless manslaughter, the court denied them the “‘option of convicting on a . . . less drastic alternative’ than . . . second-degree murder, and precluded [Estevez] from receiving ‘the full benefit of the reasonable-doubt standard.’” Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. at 407 , ¶ 13 (quoting State v. Celaya, 135 Ariz. 248, 253 (1983)).