Opinion ID: 867374
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's statements.

Text: ¶ 22 Garza's arguments about improper statements during the State's voir dire are directed toward comments such as these: Mr. Barry: At the outset I want to tell you that as an attorney for the State I have a sworn duty to ensure that the record shows that every juror is fair and impartial. That's our job, and that's what we're here to do. That means that I must ensure that every juror is going to follow the law as Judge Martin instructs you. Now, does everybody agree to be fair? ¶ 23 Garza claims that such comments were impermissible prosecutorial vouching. Prosecutorial vouching occurs when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness, or where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness's testimony. State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 401, 783 P.2d 1184, 1193 (1989). The comments cited by Garza do not meet this description, but rather simply describe the role of the prosecutor in jury selection.