State v. Bonfiglio, 228 Ariz. 349

Bonfiglio was convicted of aggravated assault following a party incident where Moreno was stabbed during a brawl.
Reddell testified she identified Bonfiglio as an assailant but did not see the stabbing itself; Habeeb testified that Bonfiglio claimed to stab someone.
Jail calls between Bonfiglio and Mondeau were admitted, including threats to influence potential witnesses.
During closing, the prosecutor argued that the absence of other witnesses could be explained by the jail calls and witness tampering attempts.
Bonfiglio was found guilty by a jury and a single aggravating factor—Bonfiglio’s ability to walk away—was found; two prior felonies were acknowledged at sentencing.
The trial court imposed an aggravated sentence of 13 years, with 208 days of presentence credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal	Bonfiglio contends the prosecutor vouched for guilt via jail-call inference.	Bonfiglio contends no improper vouching occurred; statement was inferential.	No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; inference permissible.
Validity of aggravated sentence based on catch-all factor	Using can-walk-away factor doubles punishment with an element of the crime.	Prior felonies and other factors justify aggravation; catch-all permissible with other proven factors.	Aggravation proper; prior felonies validate enhanced sentence within statutory range.

State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560 (Ariz. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct standard for assessing impact on fair trial)
State v. Velazquez, 216 Ariz. 300 (Ariz. 2007) (test for whether misconduct permeates trial atmosphere)
State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (Ariz. 2007) (unfair trial due to pervasive improper conduct)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (Ariz. 1993) (trial may summarize evidence and urge inferences)
State v. Harvey, 193 Ariz. 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998) (catch-all aggravator proper where misconduct exceeds element)
State v. Schmidt, 220 Ariz. 563 (Ariz. 2009) (Blakely/Apprendi implications for catch-all aggravators)
State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578 (Ariz. 2005) (jury may impose maximum after aggravating finding; presumption within range)
State v. Estrada, 210 Ariz. 111 (Ariz. 2005) (prior convictions as aggravating factor and sentencing range)
State v. LeMaster, 137 Ariz. 159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983) (prior convictions may enhance and aggravate within new maximum)
State v. Ritacca, 169 Ariz. 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) (prior convictions used for aggravation)
State v. Zinsmeyer, 222 Ariz. 612 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (remand for resentencing where trial court failed to specify aggravated factors)