DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garner, 569 P.2d 1341.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    t provides a reasonable basis to infer that the defendant had a 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
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
    We also consider whether the type of evidence described in State v. Garner, 116 Ariz. 443, is inherently intrinsic to the charged act.
  • 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
    the prosecutor responded that uncharged acts committed against a victim are admissible without notice or hearing under Rules 403 and 404.
  • 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
    that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the offense charged.” As the court stated in Garcia, “ ‘evidence of a prior similar sex offense committed against the same child is admissible to show the defendant’s lewd disposition or unnatural attitude toward the particular victim.’ ” , 28 P.3d at 332
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
    and murder of a seven- year-old girl); -27, -73 (1979) (admitting evidence of prior child molestation and lewd and lascivious conduct involving a seven- year-old girl in case charging child molestation, commission of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of fifteen, and attempted rape of the same victim); State v. Garner, 116 Ariz. 443, 447-48, -46 (1977) (admitting evidence of prior child molestation of victim beginning at age five in case charging child molestation of same victim
  • 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
    See, , (child molestation involving the same victim); Garcia, 200 Ariz. at 472, ¶ 3 , 28 P.3d at 328 (child molestation); ¶ 7 , (child molestation/sexual misconduct with minor); , 937 P.2d
  • 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. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (emotional-propensity exception to general rule excluding evidence of prior acts); 8 , (discussing emotional-propensity exception specifically as to evidence of other sexually-aberrant acts committed against the same victim); , , 262 Ariz. Adv.
  • State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    ual offenses against V. was admissible on other grounds, we need not consider whether it was necessary to “complete the story.” 5 *213 ¶ 16 “In a case involving a sex offense committed against a child, evidence of a prior similar sex offense committed against the same child is admissible to show the defendant’s lewd disposition or unnatural attitude toward the particular victim.” , , (relying on Gamer to affirm trial court’s evidentiary ruling without considering propriety of court’s conclusion
  • 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
    We need not, however, reach the issue of whether the prior acts were admissible under the enumerated exceptions set forth in Rule 404(b), because we reject defendant’s
  • 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
    (citing People v. Sylvia, 54 Cal.2d 115 , 4 Cal.Rptr.
  • State v. Pierce 826 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Pierce 826 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • In Re the Appeal in Pinal County Juvenile Action Nos. J-1123 & J-1124 709 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • In Re the Appeal in Pinal County Juvenile Action Nos. J-1123 & J-1124 709 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    the child involved was over ten years old at the time of trial, but there was evidence indicating he was of somewhat below average intelligence for a boy of his age.
  • State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984