Cited by

¶15 A similar misunderstanding appears in another case the court of appeals relied on—

Motors Corp., ¶ 48 (App. 2003).

Motors Corp., ¶ 50 (App. 2003) (“Arizona courts generally hold that a presumption is a procedural device that shifts the burden of producing contrary evidence to the party opposing the presumed fact but leaves the burden of persuasion on the proponent of the evidence.”); Ariz. R. Evid.

Motors Corp., ¶ 13 (App. 2003).

Motors Corp., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

¶ 21 (App. 2003) (We presume juries follow instructions.).

Motors Corp., ¶ 12 n.1 (App. 2003) (noting an issue raised and ruled upon was preserved for review).

Motors Corp., ¶ 12 n.1 (App. 2003) (noting issue raised and ruled upon was preserved for review).

Motors Corp., ¶ 27 (App. 2003) and Gomulka v. Yavapai Mach.

Motors Corp., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

Motors Corp., ¶ 21 (App. 2003) (presumption exists that jury follows instructions).

Motors Corp., , 590 ¶ 50, ("Arizona courts generally hold that a presumption is a procedural device that shifts the burden of producing contraiy evidence to the party opposing the presumed fact but leaves the burden of persuasion on the proponent of the evidence,”).

Motors Corp., ¶ 21 (App. 2003) (presuming juries follow jury instructions).

Motors Corp., (adhering to general rules for rebuttable presumptions where neither substantive common law nor statute creating presumption compels otherwise).

¶7 We review the ruling excluding the testimony and exhibits for an abuse of discretion and will affirm absent prejudice, ¶ 9, or the incorrect application of the law.

Motors Corp., -90, ¶¶ 48-50 , -71 (App.2003) (discussing presumptions).

Motors Corp., -82 , -63 (App.2003).

5 Corp., (reviewing a trial court’s decision that a party had waived an issue for an abuse of discretion).

Motors Corp., State ex rel.

Motors Corp., P.3d 956 (App. 2003).