Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kiper, 887 P.2d 592.

230 citing documents.

State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
DISCUSSION ¶13 When a timely objection is made, this court reviews a superior court’s “decision to admit evidence of other acts for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 68 (2012) (citation omitted), recognizing an admissibility “ruling will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion,” (citation omitted).
State v. Sanchez-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Sanchez-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
United States v. White, 972 F.2d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 1992).
State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
When reviewing a trial court’s ruling, we “must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.”
State v. Dixson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dixson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(rejecting defendant’s request to examine a juror because the jury was polled and “substantial case law holds that the subjective motives and mental processes of a juror are not a proper area of inquiry to impeach a verdict.”); (finding an abuse of d
State v. Kelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
DISCUSSION ¶7 As applicable here, the decision to admit evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, ¶ 19 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 18 (2010)), viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect,”
State v. Laris Laris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Laris Laris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Laris Laris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Laris Laris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Fortune Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fortune Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Joyce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Joyce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
401, and “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise prohibited by law.” (citing Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Naranjo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Naranjo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Steed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Steed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eddins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eddins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019