Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia, 28 P.3d 327.

46 citing documents.

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
We review the admission of such evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 25 (App. 2001), and will reverse the court’s ruling only upon a finding of clear prejudice
State v. Elkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Elkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Pendleton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Pendleton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 16 (App. 2017) ("[C]lear and convincing evidence of sexually aberrant acts provides 'assurance that the other act indeed occurred,' thereby helping to 'assur[e] that probative need over-balances the potential for unfair prejudice.'" ( ¶ 31 (App. 2001))).
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
404(c); ¶ 26 (App. 2001).
State v. Cuevas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cuevas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶7 As an exception to the general rule prohibiting propensity evidence, Rule 404(c) “permits the admission of evidence of uncharged acts to establish ‘that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the offense charged.’” ¶ 26 (App. 2001) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pegeese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pegeese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
4 STATE v. PEGEESE Decision of the Court ¶ 26 (App. 2001) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the crime charged.” See Herrera, 232 Ariz. at 547, ¶ 28 (holding “‘evidence of a prior similar sex offense committed against the same child’ may show ‘the defendant’s lewd disposition or unnatural attitude toward the particular victim.’”) () (citation omitted); ¶ 28 (App. 2001) (“[A] defendant’s aberrant sexual propensity might be proved by admitting evidence of similar acts committed near in time to the offense charged.”) ()
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
Requiring clear and convincing evidence of sexually aberrant acts provides “assurance that the other act indeed occurred,” thereby helping to “assur[e] that probative need over-balances the potential for unfair prejudice.” , disapproved in part by Ferrero, ¶¶ 10-12 , 274 P.3d at 511-12 .
Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶32 Rule 404(c) "permits the admission of evidence of uncharged acts to establish 'that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the offense charged.'" ¶ 26 (App. 2001).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rule 404(c) “permits the admission of evidence of uncharged acts to establish ‘that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the offense charged.’” ¶ 26 (App. 2001) (quoting Rule 404(c)).
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 25, 4 Kummer also raises concerns regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
404(c)(2); –76 ¶ 27, –32 (App. 2001).
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
On appeal, ¶ 31 , that an uncharged sex act against the victim of a charged offense is not admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b) but only may be admitted pursuant to Rule 404(e).
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Relying, in part, on State v. Garcia, he maintains that because the Yuma Acts purportedly were committed before the charged offenses, they were not intrinsic, but were, as the court in Garcia described the other acts in that ease, “discrete offenses, identical to but occurring at different times than the ones charged.”
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Aside from the testimony of the children themselves there was little direct evidence of the molestations, ¶¶ 41-42 , (error in allowing evidence of uncharged acts held to be harmless when victim’s testimony corroborated with physical proof), so the question becomes whether the verdict would have been the same without the direct evidence that Defendant was a child molester.
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. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Nichols 33 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Nichols 33 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
We are aware of a recent opinion of Division One of this court, , that states, "The United States Supreme Court has recently held that, with the possible exception of sentencing factors such as prior convictions, any element of an offense that increases the penalty must be charged in the indictment and proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doub