Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Beasley, 70 P.3d 463.

48 citing documents.

State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
This court reviews “the admission of prior act evidence under Rule 404(b) for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
Leland v. Auto Nation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Leland v. Auto Nation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 19 (App. 2014) (evidence); ¶ 19 (App. 2003) (prior convictions).
State v. Vega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Vega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 5 (App. 2010); ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“We review the admission of prior[-]act evidence under Rule 404(b) for [an] abuse of discretion.” State 6 ¶ 14 (App. 2003) ( ¶ 20 (1999)).
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, State v. Uriarte , , ¶ 21, including the admissibility of prior convictions, State v. Beasley , , ¶ 19
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thus, for hearsay to be admissible as an excited utterance, “(1) there must have been a startling event; (2) the statement must relate to the startling event; and (3) the statement must be made spontaneously, that is, soon enough after the event so as not to give the declarant time to fabricate.” ¶ 29 , ( , ).
State v. Lieder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lieder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Evidence of prior acts is admissible if relevant and admitted for a proper purpose, such as to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 14 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See, ¶¶ 19-23, -68 (App. 2003).
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–40, ¶¶ 19–26, –69 (App. 2003) (discussing the value of sanitizing a prior conviction for use impeaching a witness’s credibility to avoid unfair prejudice arising from discussion of the nature of the prior offense).
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 15 , (court was not required to make explicit findings that balanced the probative value of the evidence against the unfair prejudice because the record revealed that the parties argued both the probative value and any unfair prejudice that could result in the admission of the state
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Although the court made no express finding that the danger of undue prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence, the record sufficiently demonstrates that “the necessary factors were argued, considered, and balanced by the trial court as part of its ruling.”
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
does not state that the judge may make some factual determinations that increase a sentence.
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 19 , (citing Joseph M. Livermore, Robert Bartels & Anne Holt Hameroff, Law of Evidence § 609.1 (4th ed.2000); Carl McGowan, Impeachment of Criminal Defendants by Prior Convictions, 1970 Law & Soc.