Cited by

¶48 Hardy did not testify about “other acts.” ¶ 32 (App. 2007) (“Rule 404(b) only precludes evidence .

(“Rule 404(b) only precludes evidence that is offered to show the character of a defendant to prove disposition to acts of a particular type.”).

Decision of the Court ¶30 Palmares also argues the superior court erred in admitting the writings and texts because “their prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any probative value.” The superior court has broad discretion because it “is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 39 (App. 2007).

5 STATE v. PARKINSON Opinion of the Court ‘sets forth a constitutional claim in which he asserts that the information is necessary to his defense,’ we will conduct a de novo review.” ()).

at 116 ¶ 12 ( ¶ 22 (App. 2007)).

at 296 ¶ 17 ( ¶ 39 (App. 2007)).

To establish a justification defense, a “defendant may offer into evidence specific instances of violence committed by the victim,” if he “knew of them,” or “reputation or opinion evidence that the victim ha[d] a violent or aggressive character trait.” -59, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Ariz. R. Evid.

In other words, “[w]hen counsel opens the whole field of inquiry, he cannot assign its fruits as error on appeal.” (citation omitted) (holding defense counsel opened the door to hearsay evidence of defendant’s involvement in a rape-robbery by asking a witness about the incident); ¶ 35 (App. 2007) (holding defense counsel opened the door to evidence defendant was suspected of burglarizing the victim’s apartment by questioning witness about defendant’s whereabouts on that day).

¶7 The court also found that the “reasonable possibility” standard for in-camera review— ¶ 10 (App. 2007), from Roper’s view of a defendant’s constitutional right to discover privileged records—was inadequate.

¶ 6 (App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard applies to review of discovery rulings).

¶ 33 (App. 2007) (admission of burglary evidence was proper to rebut defendant’s testimony about the relationship with the victim); -61 (1996) (stating limited admission of co-defendant’s statements was proper when questioning implied there was no evidence linking the defe

R.S., 247 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 8 ( ¶ 8 (2019)); ¶ 6 (App. 2007) (citing Emmett McLoughlin Realty, ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).

¶9 It is well-established that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one.” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977); see Brady, 373 U.S. 83; –62, ¶ 21 (App. 2007).

A. Relevance ¶10 “Relevant evidence is evidence that has any tendency to make the existence of any fact in dispute more or less probable.” ¶ 30 (App. 2007) (citing Ariz. R. Evid.

¶ 39 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

State v. Connor , , ¶ 18, ; A.R.S.

8 See Todd , , ¶ 6, ; see also State v. Connor , , ¶ 39, ("Because '[t]he trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice,' the trial court has broad discretion in this decision."

403 ; see State v. Connor , , ¶ 39, , 607 (App. 2007) (trial court in best position to balance probative value of evidence against potential for unfair prejudice and therefore has broad discretion under Rule 403 ).