Opinion ID: 867374
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Denial of a jury instruction on residual doubt.

Text: ¶ 67 Garza contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a penalty phase instruction allowing the jury to consider as a mitigating circumstance residual doubt that he committed the murders. There is, however, no constitutional requirement that the sentencing proceeding jury . . . consider[ ] evidence of `residual doubt.' Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 136 ¶ 82, 140 P.3d at 919 (quoting Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517, 126 S.Ct. 1226, 1230-32, 163 L.Ed.2d 1112 (2006)). Nor does Arizona law require such an instruction. See Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 348 ¶ 86, 111 P.3d at 390 (During the . . . penalty phase[ ], a jury may not revisit its initial guilty verdict.).