State v. Brown, 1 CA-CR 16-0501

Brown and NA verbally clash in Circle K, then physically confront each other after Brown buys a bus pass.
Brown draws and points a gun during the altercation; the gun jams and no shot is fired.
The gun is transferred to or taken by JT; Brown and JT are apprehended nearby; JT is found with a jammed gun.
Brown is charged with aggravated assault (class 3) and tampering with physical evidence (class 6); misconduct involving weapons (class 4) is dismissed before trial.
A four-day jury trial results in Brown on both remaining charges; he receives an aggravated concurrent term of 15 years for aggravated assault and 3.75 years for tampering; 252 days of presentence incarceration credit is awarded.
On appeal Brown argues prosecutorial misconduct and challenges the presentence credit; the court affirms convictions but adjusts credit to 260 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct claim	Brown asserts misconduct by likening defense to a magic trick.	State contends closing remarks were permissible advocacy against the defense theory.	No prosecutorial misconduct; comments were directed at the defense theory, not counsel.
Presentence incarceration credit	Brown contends 252 days of credit were incorrect; he is entitled to more.	State concedes and agrees with the need to adjust credit.	Credit modified to 260 days; sentences adjusted accordingly.

State v. Martinez, 230 Ariz. 208 (2012) (fundamental error review when no objection to misconduct)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (prejudice standard for prosecutorial error)
State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290 (2000) (wide latitude in closing arguments; commenting on evidence allowed)
State v. Ramos, 235 Ariz. 230 (App. 2014) (may attack defense theory; distractions or red herrings)
State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152 (1990) (describing defense as outrageous or smoke screen permissible)
Lynch v. Arizona, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016) (prohibition on improper attacks; context of defense theory)
State v. Lynch, 238 Ariz. 84 (2015) (consistent rejection of unfounded misconduct arguments)