Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Treadaway, 568 P.2d 1061.

81 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
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
404(c)(1)(C)(i)–(ii); –67 (1977) (holding, under Arizona common law before the adoption of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, that other act evidence, which is remote and dissimilar from the charged act, is not admissible unless there is expert testimony that the other act “tends to show a continuing emotional propensity to commit the act
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶19 Finally, for the proposition that admitting other act evidence in sex offense cases is reversible error unless there is “reliable expert medical testimony” that tends to “show a continuing emotional propensity to commit the crime charged.” He further argues tha
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See State v. Treadaway , , 168, (offer of proof not necessary when substance of potential testimony apparent); see also State v. Keener , , 465, (hearsay generally admissible in suppression hearing); Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
2 Garner cites cases admitting “other act” evidence to show a P.2d 87 (1973), P.2d 1061 (1977).
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
The comment to the 1997 amendment provides that subsection (c)
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
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
¶ 10 Rule 404(c) was added by the supreme court in 1997 and, according to the official comment, was intended to " , , "
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
According to the comment to the 1997 amendment
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Comment to 1997 Amendment to Rule 404 (Supp.1999) (rejecting bright-line test for remoteness, , ).
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
in which the court held that a somewhat dissimilar act committed three years before the charged offense could not be admitted in evidence without expert testimony showing that despite the dissimi *396 larity and remoteness in time, such act proved a propensity of the accused to commit the act c
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Defendant argues that the prior acts were admitted solely to show his propensity to commit the crimes charged; , that the prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighed its probative value; and that admission of the evidence was reversible error.
State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
-68 , -69 (1977); State ex rel.
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
When, however, the other bad act and the crime charged are remote in time, or the crimes are not sufficiently similar, reliable expert medical testimony is required “to show a continuing emotional propensity to commit the act charged.”
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
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
DISCUSSION EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT Because the state sought to introduce evidence of uncharged sexual conduct that occurred as long as ten years prior to the charged offenses, it was required to present qualified expert testimony that the prior acts showed a “continuing emotional propensity” , (requiring expert testimony to establish that prior sexual offenses remote in time or different in nature from the charged offense are relevant to show the defendant’s continuing sexually aberrant
State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(requiring expert testimony to establish that prior sexual offenses remote in time or different in nature from the offense charged are relevant to show the continuing sexually aberrant propensities of the accused).
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY Defendant first argues that the prior bad act testimony should not be received because Emerick’s testimony was not “expert medical testimony”
State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
the supreme court held that where the prior acts are remote in time or dissimilar in nature to the crime charged, the prior acts are inadmissible unless there is “reliable expert medical testimony” that such acts show a continuing emotional propensity to commit the crime charged.
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
1 However, , the supreme court held that evidence of remote prior sexual misconduct was not admissible at trial to prove that the defendant was guilty of other acts of sexual misconduct unless there was expert testimony to prove that the prior misconduct demonstrated a propensity to commit the acts for whic
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Bailey 800 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Bailey 800 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989