Cited by

“Clear and convincing evidence creates a high probability that a proposition is true but need not establish that it is certainly or unambiguously true.” ¶ 19 n.4 (App. 2011) (cleaned up).

(finding that sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old girl was sufficiently similar to sexual contact with a seven-year-old girl); - 93 (1996) (finding no abuse of discretion by admitting other-act evidence of defendant’s sexual encounter with his fourteen-year-old girlfriend when the charged offense involved a seven-year-old female); ¶¶ 19-20 (holding that the other-act evidence was properly admitted for both the eleven-year-old victim and a six-year-old victim).

¶ 19 n.4 (App. 2011) (“The testimony of the victim is a sufficient basis on which to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the incident occurred.”).

¶ 19 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

¶ 19 (App. 2011) (“Having decided to admit the testimony pursuant to Rule 404(b), the superior court necessarily concluded the testimony constituted clear and convincing evidence of the act.” (citation omitted)); (presuming trial judges know the law and apply it in

¶ 19 & n.4 (App. 2011) (holding “victim’s in-person testimony satisfied the clear-and- convincing requirement of Rule 404(c)(1)(A)).

¶ 18 (App. 2011) (concluding, based on entire trial record, that the court’s admission of other-act evidence without making explicit 404(c) findings was harmless error).

n.4 ¶ 19 (App. 2011) (“The testimony of the victim is a sufficient basis on which to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the incident occurred.”).

Although the court failed to make the specific findings of admissibility of this evidence as required by Rule 404(c)(1)(D), see supra ¶ 44, “we may consider the entire trial record in determining whether it was harmless error for the court to admit [other-acts evidence] without first screening the evidence and making the findings Rule 404(c) requires,” ¶ 18 (App. 2011); see also Aguilar, 209 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 37 (“The trial court’s failure to make a sufficient finding as to the first factor of Rule

We address each issue in turn, mindful that we generally review the admission of evidence under Rule 404(c) for an abuse of discretion, , yet we review de novo the interpretation of the rules of evidence.

Clear and convincing evidence need not, however, “establish that it is certainly or unambiguously true.” n.4, ¶ 19 (App. 2011).

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “fails to exercise its discretion in ruling on a matter.” ¶ 6 (App. 2011).

¶ 19 n.4 (App. 2011) (noting uncorroborated testimony by victim is sufficient to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an incident occurred).

n.4 (App. 2011) (noting uncorroborated testimony by victim is sufficient to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an incident occurred).

n.4 ¶ 19, n.4 (App. 2011) (noting victim’s testimony is sufficient basis on which to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that other incidents occurred).

-14 (App. 2013) (noting uncorroborated testimony of victim sufficient to justify admission under rule); n.4, n.4 (App. 2011) (same).

See Garner, 116 Ariz. at 447, 569 P.2d at 1345 ( (admitting evidence of prior sexual assaults to show a “system, plan and scheme”); (similar)); ¶¶ 34-35, (Thompson, J., concurring).