State of Arizona, Appellee v. Julio Pedroza-Perez, Appellant

Summary

The court held that the trial court improperly barred the defendant from mentioning his duress defense and anticipated testimony during opening statement merely because he might later choose not to testify. The defendant had established a good-faith basis for the anticipated evidence, and the restriction was not structural error because he ultimately presented the defense through his testimony, closing argument, and the jury instruction. The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and remanded for harmless-error review.