pled guilty. See State v. Detrich, 188 Ariz. 57, 69, 932 P.2d 1328, 1340 (1997) (when disparity results from appropriate plea agreement, disparity not mitigating). Moreover, Clabourne was the killer, and review, we find that the mitigating circumstances are insufficiently substantial to warrant leniency. B. Other Sentencing Issues 1. Rick Diaz’s Post-Hypnotic Testimony ¶45 On the night Webster was murdered, she was accompanied to the Green Dolphin Bar by Rick Diaz. The day before trial, the State notified defense counsel that Diaz had been hypnotized after he had given statements. The State agreed to limit testimony to information contained in Diaz’s original, unhypnotized statements. See State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 180, 210-11, 644 P.2d 1266, 1296-97 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Diaz testified at trial that Clabourne did
holding witness who has been hypnotized may testify only to facts demonstrably recalled prior to hypnosis and only where certain prerequisites have been met holding the same where the term conviction refers to a defendant who has been found guilty of a listed offense but has not yet been sentenced holding that class actions may only be certified if the trial court is satisfied after a rigorous analysis that the prerequisites of rule 23a have been satisfied recognizing that where witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify jurors are entitled to draw negative inference from witness refusal to testify holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness