Cited by

Even so, Ewer did not foreclose the use of other instructions when needed “to instruct the jury on applicable law based on the state’s or defendant’s positions at trial in order to assist the jury in analyzing a justification claim.” ¶¶ 63-64 (App. 2009) (jury instructions on relevant law can be appropriate to assist jury in determining validity of self-defense claim).

Though we review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2009), we review the interpretation of rules de novo, ¶ 5 (2018).

2 STATE v. CALDERA Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶6 We review the superior court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2009), and “give[] deference to the trial court’s determination of relevance,” -14, ¶¶ 62-63 (2013).

¶23 But Truong concedes that “premeditation can show intent.” Our review is limited to whether the superior court’s decision to admit Kenzie’s testimony was “legally incorrect.” ¶ 8 (App. 2009).

¶ 68 (App. 2009) (When self-defense is the defendant’s entire case, the jury must be correctly instructed.).

¶ 43 (App. 2009) (if evidence is admitted for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b), “the court should instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which it is being admitted”); Ariz. R. Evid.

¶19 Here, however, in applying a clear and convincing standard as a precondition to the admission of a non-defendant’s relevant prior acts.

.” 5 STATE v. CAROZZA Decision of the Court ¶16 Under 404(b)(2), evidence of a person’s other acts is admissible to show motive, intent, or to corroborate the defendant’s “version of the events.” –23 ¶¶ 42–45 (App. 2009).

¶ 79 (App. 2009) (“We will not reverse a judgment on a ground which is allegedly erroneous, even if the error was fundamental, when the appellant invited that error.”).

¶¶ 63–64 (App. 2009) (holding that jury instructions regarding relevant law may be appropriate to assist the jury in determining validity of a self-defense claim).

At most, however, any error was invited by Medlin’s defense attorney and Medlin cannot “profit[] from the error on appeal.” 135, ¶¶ 12, 17 (App. 2009); ¶ 79 (App. 2009).

404(a)(2) (permitting evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim offered by an accused)); ¶ 37 (App. 2009) (“When offered to prove a defendant reasonably feared for his safety and used a reasonable degree of force in light of that fear, character evidence is 5 STATE v. HARRELL Decision of the Court not

¶ 35 (App. 2009) ("[A] defendant may not introduce evidence of specific acts unknown to the defendant at the time of the alleged crime to show that the victim was the initial aggressor."); see also Zaid, 249 Ariz. at 158-59, ¶¶ 14-16 (discussing Fish and the circumstances in a self-defense case necessary to rend

“The standard of relevance is not particularly high.”

See, e.g., Taylor, 169 Ariz. at 124 (allowing defendant to argue that he knew of the victim’s prior conviction for child abuse, which was relevant to demonstrate the defendant’s state of mind, because he believed the victim to be violent); ¶ 9 (App. 2009) (admitting evidence of victim’s other acts of violence, which all involved the victim becoming “irrationally aggressive and threatening” with “a wild look in his eyes” and “thrashing the air as if to attack the person” when confronted about his

(no requirement to give lesser included instruction rejected by defendant “even when otherwise warranted by the evidence”); ¶¶ 79–80 (App. 2009) (omitted instruction that defendant expressly rejected at trial treated as invited error on appeal).

404(b); ¶ 21 (App. 2009) (explaining evidence of specific other acts by a victim is generally inadmissible unless permitted under Rule 404(b)).

State v. Fish , , ¶ 8, , 263 (App. 2009).