State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres, 314 P.3d 825

Torres was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of Victoria in an apartment he shared with Victoria and their child, Mary.
Police found Victoria dead in rigor mortis; initial statements claimed suicide, later Torres admitted to his mother in a jail call that he committed the murder.
Autopsy showed Victoria was stabbed at least 25 times; a weapon was found hidden in a hallway closet and bleach was poured around the body.
Torres was treated for a cut finger shortly after the incident; a time-stamped photo shows Torres and Mary leaving the hospital at 4:20 a.m.
The trial court sentenced Torres to an aggravated term of nineteen years after finding two aggravators: presence of a minor and emotional impact on the victim’s family.
Torres timely appealed, challenging the verdict form, the presence-of-child aggravator, and the legality of a criminal restitution order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the verdict form error require reversal?	Torres did not propose or urge the form; he acquiesced but did not invite error.	State contends invited error requires reversal only if invited by the party.	No fundamental-error found; waiver of non-fundamental error; verdict form issue not reversible.
Whether the presence of a child justified an aggravating factor under § 13-701(D)(18).	Torres argues no evidence shows Mary was present or aware during the murder.	State argues circumstantial evidence supports presence as a been-in-close-proximity scenario.	Court affirmed; sufficient evidence supported presence of a child for aggravation.
Whether the criminal restitution order was illegal at sentencing.	Not raised on appeal, but law recognizes CRO at sentencing can be illegal if imposed before probation or sentence expires.	State did not advance a contrary position on CRO legality in appeal context.	CRO vacated; improper to impose CRO before expiration of sentence.

State v. Prince, 226 Ariz. 516 (Ariz. 2011) (de novo review of jury instructions)
State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 (Ariz. 2001) (invited error analysis)
State v. Lucero, 223 Ariz. 129 (App. 2009) (invited-error framework; not inviting error)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2005) (fundamental-error waiver standard)
State v. Burgett, 226 Ariz. 85 (Ariz. 2010) (presence of child—no requirement that child be in same room)
State v. Long, 207 Ariz. 140 (App. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard for aggravators)
State v. Peralta, 212 P.3d 51 (Ariz. App. 2009) (aggravating-factor review; substantial evidence standard)
State v. Lopez, 298 P.3d 909 (Ariz. App. 2013) (CRO legality at sentencing)
State v. Lewandowski, 207 P.3d 784 (Ariz. App. 2009) (illegal CRO at sentencing)
State v. Moreno-Medrano, 185 P.3d 135 (Ariz. App. 2008) (fundamental-error and waiver considerations)
State v. Fernandez, 169 P.3d 641 (Ariz. App. 2007) (fundamental-error analysis guidance)