Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jackson, 603 P.2d 94.

46 citing documents.

State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
[T]here must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects ‘when normally there could be expected to be found differences.’” ().
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
modus operandi exception, there would be nothing left of” the general prohibition in Rule 404(b)); Prion, 203 Ariz. at 164 ¶¶ 40-41 (2002) (finding 1992 murder and kidnapping/aggravated assault two years later insufficiently similar where “each involved a female victim, and a knife or knives were utilized by the perpetrator(s) at some point during commission of the crimes”); -05 (1979) (finding 1976 incident insufficiently similar to three 1974 crimes where all four “occurred in the daytime, in
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
207 , (concluding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on a prior version of child molestation by reciting the statutory elements of the offense and refusing defendant’s request to require proof of an “ ‘unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intentions with respect to children’” as “an additional element”), approved in part and vacated on other grounds, 205 , 97 (1979).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
207, (concluding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on a prior version of child molestation by reciting the statutory elements of the offense and refusing defendant’s request to require proof of an “‘unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intentions with respect to children’” as “an additional element”), approved in part and vacated on other grounds, 205, 97 (1979).
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“While identity in every particular is not required, there must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects ‘when normally there could be expected to be found differences.’” ( ).
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
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
(evidence of later rape inadmissible because of differences from crimes at issue); -48 , -81 (1990) (evidence of prior burglary admissible to show later intent to burglarize when crimes occurred in the same neighborhood within a 48-hou
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
Explained State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-121430 838 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-121430 838 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
§ 13-1410, was conduct “caused by unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intentions with respect to children.” , approved in part and vacated in part on other grounds
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
(rape and burglary prosecution, admission of unrelated similar incident where defendant entered woman’s apartment held harmless error).
State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1985
State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1985
Not only were the prior acts distinctive and unique, but there were similarities between the prior acts and the acts for which defendant was being tried “when normally there could be expected to be found differences.”
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Furthermore, , when utilizing the common scheme exception, a court must determine the admissibility of the other acts by reviewing not only the similarities, but also the differences between the alleged acts.
State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. Cruz 672 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1983
State v. Cruz 672 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1983
Such evidence is admissible to show the defendant's *546 plan, , , or to show the complete story of the crime.
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
the test for whether a subsequent act is admissible is whether there are similarities in important aspects of the act where differences would be expected.
State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
set out the test for admitting evidence of prior bad acts to prove identity: there must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects where normally differences would be expected to be found.
State v. Miller 624 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Miller 624 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
must be in those aspects where normally there could be expected to be found differences.” , ( , -83 (1963)).