Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Salazar, 887 P.2d 617.

39 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Max G. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Max G. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State v. Wyffels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Wyffels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The court should consider “whether the probative value of the evidence is sufficient,” “what restrictions to place in jury instructions on the usage of the evidence,” and “whether the evidence can be narrowed or limited to protect both parties by minimizing its potential for unfair prejudice while preserving its probative value.” –92 (App. 1994).
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
This court has noted that other act evidence can overcome a significant gap in time if the other act shares a similar “setting, age of victim, and mode of operation.” n.5 (App. 1994).
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See id.; ¶ 24 (1999) (remoteness goes to the weight of the evidence but generally not to its admissibility); n.5 (App. 1994) (admitting other act evidence that occurred 20 years earlier).
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hanley responds that, for other acts evidence, “the rules have a different thrust, and the suppositional balance no longer tilts toward admission.”
State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gehon argues it was incumbent on the court to limit the other-act evidence “only to its probative core.” ¶29 When evaluating the probative value and attendant prejudice of other-act evidence, a trial court should consider “whether the evidence can be narrowed or limited to protect both parties
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
See Ferrero, , 274 P.3d at 514 (noting proponent must “satisffy] Rule 404(c)’s prerequisites”); , (acknowledging burden under Rule 404(b)); , (emphasizing that proponent of other-act evidence must show Rule 403 balance favors admission); , (recognizing proponent’s burden under case law predating Rule 404(c)); -62 , 63
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-05 (App. 1988) (holding prior acts that occurred twenty-two years before trial were not too remote to be admitted at trial); n.5 (App. 1995) (finding a prior act that occurred twenty years before the charged offense was relevant).
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, n.5, n.5 (App. 1994) (approving admission of evidence of uncharged rape that occurred twenty years prior to the charged offense with appropriate restraints); -05, -92 (App. 1988) (allowing evidence regarding prior acts of child molestation t
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Division One of this court reversed a defendant’s conviction, in part because the trial court had admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior crimes without redacting nonprobative, 2 Because Franks also admitted having downloaded adult pornography and copied it to
Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-92 , -22 (App.1994) (evidence of prior molestations partially admissible in case where expert testified at propensity hearing but not at trial); -18 , -71 (App.1991) (evidentiary predicate of Treadaway satisfied by psychologist’s testimony at pret
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
“When the evidence concerns prior bad acts, however, the rules have a different thrust, and the suppositional balance no longer tilts towards admission.”
State v. McAnulty 909 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. McAnulty 909 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
89 n. 1, , 619 n. 1 (App.1994).
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995