State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• any effect of improper vouching was mitigated by superior court’s instruction that attorney’s comments are not evidence
• instruction that attorney arguments are not evidence “can be sufficient to ‘cure’ improper vouching” (quoting Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, ¶ 109)
• prosecutor's repeated argument that witness was \credible in every way possible\ and that her demeanor \was not faked\ did not, in context, constitute impermissible vouching
• \We consider arguments made in closing together with the jury instructions to determine whether the prosecutor's statements constituted fundamental error.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).