Opinion ID: 4530412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State v. Lynch (II)

Text: ¶16 After convicting Lynch of a 2001 felony murder, the jury failed to reach a verdict on the penalty. Following a new penalty phase, Lynch was sentenced to death. On direct appeal in 2010, this Court ordered a new trial on the penalty phase because an aggravating factor was applied improperly, but we found no prosecutorial misconduct warranting reversal. State v. Lynch, 225 Ariz. 27, 42–43 ¶¶ 82–88 (2010). In Lynch II, following the jury’s return of a death verdict, we considered Martinez’s conduct in the retrial of the penalty phase. 238 Ariz. 84, 92 ¶ 6 (2015), rev’d, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016). ¶17 There, we found Martinez “improperly made argumentative statements during opening,” but concluded “the misconduct” did not affect the jury’s verdict, the “aggressive” questioning of witnesses, including experts, did not constitute fundamental error, and the alleged ad hominem attacks on defense counsel were criticisms aimed at defense theories, not counsel, and were not improper. Id. at 92 ¶ 10, 95 ¶ 22, 100 ¶¶ 47– 49. We also found that Martinez “invited the jurors to place themselves in the victim’s position and appealed to their fears” when he told them “they could not know what it was like to be ‘manhandled’ by the knife-wielding defendant.” Id. at 100 ¶ 49. We concluded that “prosecutorial misconduct, while present in some instances, was not so pronounced or sustained as to require a new sentencing trial.” Id. at 101 ¶ 52. 6 IN RE JUAN M. MARTINEZ Opinion of the Court