Opinion ID: 4237534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of the tapes into evidence

Text: ¶82 Hulsey argues that the trial court improperly applied evidentiary and statutory rules in not admitting the videotapes after allowing them to be played at trial. He bases his claim on A.R.S. § 13-751(C), which provides that “the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances . . . regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence at criminal trials.” (emphasis added). But the trial court’s treatment of the evidence carefully observed the statutory distinction between allowing a defendant to present evidence at trial through the tapes and admitting the tapes into evidence. The trial judge permitted Hulsey to “present [the] information,” 26 STATE V. HULSEY Opinion of the Court and did so “regardless of” the court’s determination that the tapes were inadmissible. ¶83 Hulsey next argues that the trial judge relied on inapplicable rules of evidence and failed to exercise appropriate discretion in determining the admissibility of the tapes. We note preliminarily that the rules of evidence do not apply in the penalty phase. A.R.S. § 13-751(C); State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 156 ¶ 40 (2006). Hulsey’s argument assumes that the trial judge relied on and felt constrained by inapplicable rules of evidence and that the judge failed to exercise discretion in ruling. Hulsey has failed, however, to present any evidence to support his claims.