Cited by

¶¶ 3, 6, 20, 22 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Cruz v. Arizona, 598 U.S. 17, n.1 (2023) (evidence of co-defendant’s guns found at defendant’s campsite was relevant to rebut defendant’s main defense that he did not know his co-defendant would have a gun during robbery).

¶ 77 (2010) (“[T]he trial court was not required to give an instruction on parole eligibility because, irrespective of any likelihood that he would die in prison, Garcia was not technically ineligible for parole.”); –15 ¶ 53 (2010) (“Unlike Simmons, Hargrave was eligible for release after twenty-five years, as the jury instruction correctly stated.”); ¶ 43 (2010) (finding that jury instruction “accurately described the statutory sentencing options” and thus did not mislead the jury (citing

at 227–28 ¶¶ 11–12 (attributing little mitigating weight to twenty-three-year-old defendant who took a leading role in executing and planning burglaries leading to murder); ¶ 80 (2010) (“We discount age as a mitigating factor when the defendant had a significant criminal record or actively participated in the murders.”); ¶¶ 57–58 (2010) (finding significance of a nineteen-year-old defendant diminished when he is a major participant and helps plan th

¶ 14 (2010) (“[M]otive is relevant in a murder prosecution.”).

“[M]otive is relevant in a murder prosecution.” ¶ 14 (2010).

¶ 28 (2010) (-68, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005)); (limiting consideration of evidentiary theories advanced for the first time on appeal to fundamental error review).

¶ 39 (2012) (concluding that other act evidence was admissible, in part, to rebut a defense theory); -10, ¶ 22 (2010) (concluding that other act evidence was admissible because it was relevant to rebut the defendant’s primary defense and “it made the defendant’s story less plausible”).

4 As to the remaining mitigating factors, I agree that, despite evidence supporting them, (court must review “all the records”), they are entitled to little or no weight, ¶ 82 (2010) (“minor participation” not established in killings when defendant involved in planning and execution of robbery and knew co-defendant prepared to kill, despite not being shooter and not intending victims harm); ¶ 150 (2009) (evidence of remorse entitled to lit

erior court’s finding that the other acts were proved by clear and convincing evidence, to be admissible under Rule 404(b), the court was required to “(1) find that the act is offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); (2) find that the prior act is relevant to prove that purpose; [and] (3) find that any probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.” ¶ 10 (2010) (citation omitted).7 6 Although the typical focus is on the pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine whet

¶ 40 (2017) (conjunctive); ¶ 12 (2016) (same); ¶ 12 (2009) (same), ¶ 58 (2014) (disjunctive); ¶ 16 (2014) (same); ¶ 13 (2010) (same); ¶ 21 (2009) (same).

See State v. Hargrave , , 14 ¶¶ 50-51, , 582 (2010) (reviewing defendant's Simmons argument for fundamental error when he failed to object to trial court's possibility-of-release instruction).

We review the superior court’s determinations for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 7 (App. 2003), but review alleged constitutional violations de novo, ¶ 42 (2010).

-10, ¶ 22 (2010) (holding other-act evidence that rebuts an asserted defense is relevant and admissible).

¶¶ 34, 36 (2010) (explaining that "armed robbery" includes all the elements of robbery and an additional element—"the presence of a weapon").

See Ferrero, , 274 P.3d at 514 (noting proponent must “satisffy] Rule 404(c)’s prerequisites”); , (acknowledging burden under Rule 404(b)); , (emphasizing that proponent of other-act evidence must show Rule 403 balance favors admission); , (recognizing pro

“Mental anguish includes a victim’s uncertainty about her ultimate fate.” ¶ 70, (internal quotation omitted).

¶7 Under Rule 404(b), evidence of other acts is not admissible “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith,” but may be admissible if offered for a different purpose, including “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” ¶ 10 (2010).