Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Salamanca, 311 P.3d 1105.

28 citing documents.

State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tupa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tupa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Evidence of a “prior act need not be factually identical to the crime at issue” 8 STATE v. MARINAKIS Decision of the Court and the reason for admitting the act is to allow a jury to infer a defendant “had knowledge of its consequences.” Id.; ¶ 20 (App. 2013) (“It demonstrated his knowledge of the risks of .
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Mott , 187 Ariz. at 545 , 931 P.2d at 1055 ("Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest [a] decision on an improper basis...."); see also State v. Salamanca , , ¶ 17, (trial court enjoys "broad discretion" in Rule 403 analysis).
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 (App. 2013) (evidence proving a defendant’s mens rea “is admissible without regard to Rule 404(b)”).
State v. Swisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Swisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 8 (App. 2013) (appellate 3 STATE v. SWISHER Decision of the Court court reviews superior court’s ruling on admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion) (citation omitted).
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 17 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 39 (App. 2007)); (); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Izquerdo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Izquerdo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Evidence may create unfair prejudice if it “has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ¶ 17 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).
Johnson v. Boatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Boatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–95, ¶ 8, –08 (App. 2013).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–95, ¶ 8, –08 (App. 2013).
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Unfair prejudice may exist if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ¶ 17 (App. 2013) (punctuation omitted).
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-48, ¶ 24, -87 (2011) (determining failure to specify the purposes for which Rule 404(b) evidence was admitted in court’s limiting instruction is harmless when purpose is apparent on the record); –96, ¶ 14, –09 (App. 2013) (determining failure to give limiting instruction not reversible error when defendant not prejudiced).