Opinion ID: 6104581
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Strikes by the trial court

Text: ¶57 Finally, Thompson asserts the trial court “repeatedly struck jurors on its own for reasons stated on the record that did not merit immediate dismissal.” But because he fails to develop this argument or even point out which prospective jurors were improperly struck by the court, Thompson has waived this argument. See State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 452 ¶ 101 n.9 (2004) (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.” (quoting State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 (1989))). ¶58 Alternatively, because Thompson did not object to striking any of the struck jurors (in fact, defense counsel repeatedly stated he had “no objection” to the trial court’s strikes), Thompson bears the burden of showing any resulting error was fundamental. See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶ 19. Because Thompson has not alleged that the jurors were struck for discriminatory reasons or articulated how any of the strikes prejudiced him, he has not met this burden. See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 142 ¶ 21.