Cited by

n of Legal Texts 167 (2012) (explaining that courts must interpret a statute’s plain language in context, because “[c]ontext is a primary determinant of meaning”)); S. Ariz. Home Builders Ass’n v. Town of Marana, ¶ 31 (2023) (explaining that we determine the meaning of a statute “according to the plain meaning of the words in their broader statutory context”); ¶ 23 (2004) (“We interpret court rules according to the principles of statutory construction.”).

Indeed, as Kirui correctly states, the trial court need only determine “that clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that the defendant committed the other act.” ¶ 30 (2004).

You may determine that the Defendant had a character trait that predisposed him to commit those crimes charged only if you decide that the 2The trial court conducted a full Rule 404(c) analysis and made “specific findings with respect to each of the prerequisites for admission under the rule.” see also Ariz. R. Evid.

1 Relatedly, we note that “[a]lthough a comment may clarify a rule’s ambiguous language, a comment cannot otherwise alter the clear text of a rule.” ¶ 26 (2004).

400 (1964) (A defendant’s failure to request a “limiting instruction constituted a waiver of any right to have such given,” and the failure to instruct is not error.); (An alleged error about the limited purpose of evidence cannot be raised “absent a request by counsel for such an instruction.”), superseded by rule on other grounds, ¶ 24 (2004).

¶11 We review a ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 29 (2004), and will uphold a court’s exercise of discretion if it is reasonably supported by the record, ¶ 77 (2007).

¶10 “[E]vidence of other bad acts is not admissible to show a defendant’s bad character.” ¶ 9 (2004) (citation omitted); accord Ariz. R. Evid.

Before admitting evidence under Rule 404(c), the “trial judge must make three determinations.” ¶ 30 (2004).

¶ 27 (2004) (noting that the admissibility of Rule 404(c) evidence may turn on the similarities of the prior and current offenses).

¶ 5 (2014); ¶ 23 (2004).

avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions”); ¶ 23 (2004) (noting that principles of statutory construction also apply to court rules).

404(c)(1)(A); ¶ 30 (2004) (recognizing the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof for other-act evidence).

(“Although a comment may clarify a rule’s ambiguous language, a comment cannot otherwise alter the clear text of a rule.”).

404(c)(1)(A)–(C); ¶ 30 (2004).

E. Claims For Relief Under Rule 32.1 ¶76 “We interpret court rules according to the principles of statutory construction.” Phillips v. O’Neil, ¶ 8 (2017) ( ¶ 23 (2004)).

P. 18.4(f); ¶ 26 (2004) (“Although a comment may clarify a rule’s ambiguous language, a comment cannot otherwise alter the clear text of a rule.”).

¶ 30 (2004) (listing the “three determinations” courts must make before admitting 10 STATE v. GILBERT Decision of the Court evidence under Rule 404(c) “to show that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an

¶ 30 (2004) (emphasis added; citations omitted).

¶16 “We interpret court rules according to the principles of statutory construction.” Phillips v. O’Neil, ¶ 8 (2017) ( ¶ 23 (2004)).

¶ 30 (2004) (citations omitted).

-49, ¶ 28 (2004) (stating that aberrant sexual propensity includes child molestation).

1 (2016 amendment); ¶ 26 (2004) (stating that “[a]lthough a comment may clarify a rule's ambiguous language, a comment cannot otherwise alter the clear text of a rule.”).

404(c)(1)(A)–(C); ¶ 30 (2004).