Case Detail
CitationState v. Manuel, 270 P.3d 828 (Ariz. 2011)
CrimeMurder
StateAZ
Pros. First NameTed
Pros. Last NameDuffy
FederalNo
Trial Year2004
BodySupreme court
OpinionThe Arizona Supreme Court found the prosecutor made improper remarks regarding defense counsel's expert's compensation but did not constitute fundamental error: "The prosecutor's remarks were improper in certain respects. He misstated the testimony about Cunningham's annual income and his assertion that Cunningham had “done the same thing in case after case, state to state” was not supported by the record. The prosecutor's comments about Cunningham's bias also were problematic. Counsel may attempt to impeach expert witnesses by showing that they earn their income by testifying consistently for one side. But absent evidentiary support, it is improper for a prosecutor to intimate that a defense expert has reached conclusions merely for pecuniary gain. The trial court here might have properly sustained an objection to the prosecutor's comments regarding Cunningham's compensation and bias, but no objection was made."
Determination Year2011
Misconduct TypeT
C/S EffectNo effect
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
SanctionsUKN
Sanction TypeUKN
Web linkhttp://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20AZCO%2020111221004.xml/STATE%20v.%20MANUEL