Cited by

404(b); (“The list of ‘other purposes’ in Rule 404(b) .

–77 (1996) (holding that evidence that the defendant had been in arrears for several months in his child support obligations was properly admitted to establish a financial motive for murders); (“We have long held that where the existence of premeditation is in issue, evidence of previous quarrels or difficulties between the accused and the victim is admissible.”).

is not exclusive; if evidence is relevant for any purpose other than that of showing the defendant’s criminal propensities, it is admissible even though it refers to his prior bad acts.”

is not exclusive; if evidence is relevant for any purpose other than that of showing the defendant’s criminal propensities, it is admissible even though it refers to his prior bad acts.”

Schrock, 149 Ariz. at 441, 719 P.2d at 1057 ( (stating a colorable claim is one that, if the defendant’s allegations are true, would change the verdict)).

is not exclusive; if evidence is relevant for any purpose other than that of showing the defendant’s criminal propensities, it is admissible even though it refers to his prior bad acts.”

Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 60, 906 P.2d at 593; (“Defendant’s prior physical abuse of and threats against [victim] were relevant to show his state of mind and thus were properly admitted under Rule 404(b).”); (“We have long held that where premeditation [along with malice or motive] is in issue, evidence of earlier quarrels or difficulties between the accused and the victim is admissible.”).

However, the list of “other purposes” contained in Rule 404(b) is not exclusive, and “if evidence is relevant for any purpose other than that of showing the defendant’s criminal propensities, it is admissible even though it refers to his prior bad acts.” (citations omitted).

19 STATE v. CURTIS Decision of the Court superior court “need not explain the basis for the decision to admit” other acts evidence under Rule 404(b) “[s]o long as the decision is supported by the facts before the court.” (citations omitted).

( (“The list of ‘other purposes’ in rule 404(b) .

Id.; (evidence of prior physical abuse and threats was admissible to show motive and intent when defense was lack of motive to kill and impulsivity); -56, -37 (1985) (alleged feud with victim was proper to prove retaliation motive); -19, -20 (1983) (prior attack showing malice toward victim was relevant to prove motive and intent and to rebut defense of love and inability to harm victim).

(evidence of previous quarrels between victim and defendant admissible and probative of motive); , (same).

(“The list of ‘other purposes’ in rule 404(b), for which other crime may be shown, is not exclusive; if evidence is relevant for any purpose other than that of showing the defendant’s criminal propensities, it is admissible----”).

“Prison officials may inspect and examine the communications of inmates without depriving them of their constitutional rights,” , see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 575-77 , 94 S.Ct.

at the time [s]he testifies.” State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404, 420

[was] consistent with receiving medical care’ ”; and (2) whether it was “ ‘reasonable for the physician to rely on the information in diagnosis or treatment.’” , -21 , -22 (1983).

defendant’s actions were during “the murderous act itself,” (3) whether the defendant intended to kill the third party, see Tison, 129 Ariz. at 542, 633 P.2d at 351; and (4) whether the defendant engaged in sufficiently risky behavior toward the third person, -29, -30 (1983).

see generally Correll v. State, 698 So.2d 522 (Fla.1997).