State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560

Gallardo was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, and kidnapping in connection with the December 9, 2005 murder of Rudy Padilla in Phoenix.
Padilla was bound, a pillowcase tied over his head, and shot in the back of the head; the scene showed signs of forced entry and theft of jewelry and a revolver.
DNA from the crime scene matched Gallardo; he had called the Padilla home on the day of the murder, and neither Padilla nor his family knew Gallardo.
Gallardo was sentenced to death for the murder and to concurrent prison terms for burglary and kidnapping.
During aggravation, the jury found two factors: Gallardo’s prior serious offense and especially cruel murder, under A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(2) and (F)(6).
This is a mandatory direct appeal under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 13-4031.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mistrial due to juror misconduct	Gallardo contends mistrial was improper, as less drastic sanctions could have sufficed.	Gallardo argues that the court abused its discretion by declaring mistrial instead of using lesser remedies.	Court denied; mistrial for manifest necessity proper.
Batson challenge to strikes of minority jurors	Gallardo asserts race-based peremptory strikes violated equal protection.	State provided race-neutral explanations for strikes; no purposeful discrimination shown.	Trial court did not clearly err; Batson challenges rejected.
Sufficiency and propriety of (F)(6) aggravator and jury instruction	Gallardo argues there was insufficient evidence of cruelty and the instruction was vague.	State presented substantial evidence of conscious pain and knowledge of suffering; instruction properly narrowed.	Evidence adequate; narrowing instruction upheld.
Victim impact evidence in penalty phase	Victim impact statements were unduly prejudicial and not properly limited to mitigation.	Statements were admissible to rebut mitigation and properly limited by instruction.	Not unduly prejudicial; admissible with proper limiting instructions.
Prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error	State's opening/closing comments improper and potentially prejudicial.	Any improper remarks were cured by court instructions; no pervasive misconduct.	No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; no cumulative error.

McLaughlin v. Fahringer, 150 Ariz. 274 (1986) (mistrial discretion and manifest necessity)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (necessity of mistrial when bias risk cannot be cured)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)
State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (2006) (clear error standard for Batson challenges; nondiscriminatory motive)
State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298 (2007) (narrowing instructions for (F)(6) aggravator and cruelty)
State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (2006) (evidence and instruction standards in capital cases)
State v. Chappell, 225 Ariz. 229 (2010) ((F)(6) narrowing factors affirmed)
State v. Villalobos, 225 Ariz. 74 (2010) ((F)(6) instruction upholding narrowing approach)
State v. Dann, 220 Ariz. 351 (2009) (limits on victim impact evidence and curative instructions)
State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56 (2007) (victim impact evidence admissibility and limiting instructions)
Newell v. State, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (harmless error and curative instructions standard)
State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (2007) (permissible consideration of aggravation and mitigation; deference to jury)