Opinion ID: 4237534
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Disparate theories

Text: ¶104 Hulsey argues that the prosecution presented “diametrically opposed theories of the same evidence.” Hulsey claims that the prosecutor first argued in the guilt phase that Officer Holly was shot at the back end of the car, and then in the aggravation phase he placed Officer Holly at the 32 STATE V. HULSEY Opinion of the Court front of the car so he could argue that Jones and Kostas were in the “zone of danger,” thus qualifying for an additional aggravator. See A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(3). ¶105 During the guilt phase, the prosecution argued that Jones testified that Officer Holly was standing near enough to the back-passenger side of the car for Jones to hand him the temporary registration; the prosecutor repeated that Officer Holly’s “body was found in the back of the [car] facing westbound.” In the aggravation phase, the prosecutor stated Officer Holly was “in the back of the [car],” and “[m]aybe [Officer Holly] took a step or two but he was standing in the back of the [car] and went down and fell face forward.” These are not diametrically opposed theories.