Crime Lab as a monolithic entity, despite their claim to the contrary. Ante at ¶43. They justify this linkage on the theory that a prosecutor is accountable for any misconduct by a law enforcement agency involved in the investigation. ¶ 54 The legal linchpin of the majority’s decision to hold the MCA strictly liable for the Phoenix Crime Lab’s sins and omissions is Rule 15.1(a)(7), which requires a prosecutor to make available to a defendant “[a]ll material or information which tends to mitigate or negate the defendant’s guilt” that was “within the prosecutor’s possession or control.” I do not dispute that the Phoenix Crime Lab was under the MCA’s control for purposes of its general compliance with Rule 15.1. Carpenter v. Superior Court, 176 Ariz. 486, 490, 862 P.2d 246, 250 (App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Rule 15.1(d) (“The prosecutor’s obligation
holding that court enforcement of a settlement agreement is not state action for constitutional purposes holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that state law enforcement agencies fall under prosecutors control for purposes of rule 151 disclosure holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state