Cited by

§ 13-1401(A)(4); ¶ 39 (App. 2000) (explaining that “one cannot penetrate the vagina without also contacting or penetrating the vulva”).

¶¶ 33–34 (App. 2000) (holding that the defendant’s lesser-included sexual conduct offense argument was rendered moot by the jury’s explicit finding that the victim was less than fifteen).

.”) (emphasis added); ¶ 14 (2022) (noting the significance of legislative language in one statutory section compared to another); ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (“Had the legislature intended to restrict the application of the statute .

If the legislature had intended to restrict the application of Section 25-409(E) to initial visitation determinations only, it could have done so, for example, by adding the word “initially” before “grant.” ¶¶ 27–28 (App. 2000) (If “the legislature intended to restrict the application of the statute .

See, ¶ 24 (App. 2020) (Defendant and victim had only met online, but there was sufficient evidence to sustain a child molestation conviction when defendant pressured the child victim to masturbate.); 506, ¶¶ 29, 41 (App. 2000) (“[N]otwithstanding the lack of direct physical contact with the molester,” molestation conviction was upheld when the victim performed acts “at the direction of an adult.”).

See id.; ¶ 14, (2022) (noting the significance of legislative language in one statutory section compared to another); ¶¶ 27–28 (App. 2000) (stating, “[h]ad the legislature intended to restrict the application of the statute .

3 ¶12 “When a witness unexpectedly volunteers an inadmissible statement, the remedy rests largely within the discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 10 (App. 2000).

eening 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 404(c) might be harmless error if the record contained substantial evidence that the requirements of admissibility were met.”) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2000)).

“Sexual contact,” on the other hand, includes “causing a person to engage” in certain conduct, § 13-1401(A)(3), meaning it encompasses acts “that an adult directs a victim to perform upon herself,”

¶ 39 (App. 2000) (“Of course, one cannot penetrate the vagina without also contacting or penetrating the vulva.”).

“When a witness unexpectedly volunteers an inadmissible statement, the remedy rests largely within the discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 10 (App. 2000).

¶ 13, (“[A] mistrial based upon a claim of evidentiary error is warranted only when the jury has been exposed to improper evidence and the error might have affected the verdict.”).

¶¶ 26-27, -47 (App. 2000).

But, “[b]arring willful ignorance or other bad faith, [the state] cannot reasonably be required to disclose in advance information the victim unexpectedly reveals for the first time during trial.”

¶ 17 ‘When a witness unexpectedly volunteei’s an inadmissible statement, the remedy rests largely within the discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 10

State v. Marshall, 197 Ariz. 496, ¶ 33

at 50, ¶ 37 , 97 P.3d at 875 ; ¶ 18 , (failure to perform Rule 404(e) analysis was harmless); ¶ 7 , (superi- or court’s failure to make specific findings required by Rule 404(c) “was at most harmless error”).

15 fifteen years or older)

See State v. Marshall, 197 Ariz. 496, 499, ¶ 7