Cited by

Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable juror “could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 50 (2012).

DISCUSSION ¶13 When a timely objection is made, this court reviews a superior court’s “decision to admit evidence of other acts for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 68 (2012) (citation omitted), recognizing an admissibility “ruling will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion,” (citation omitted).

We review de novo whether the record had sufficient evidence for the jury to render its verdict, ¶ 5 (2014), and will affirm if substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, ¶ 50 (2012).

¶ 125 (2012) (The ABA Guidelines are “guidelines and not requirements.”); ¶ 15 (2017) (same).

See Allen, 253 Ariz. at 334, ¶ 62 (citation omitted); ¶ 48 (2012) (concluding a defendant could not show prejudice when “the trial court instructed the jurors to consider each charged offense separately and advised them that the State had to prove each beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

Probative evidence “is evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Pena, 235 Ariz. at 279, ¶ 5 ( ¶ 50 (2012)).

¶ 48 (2012); ¶ 18 (2013), Allen, 253 Ariz. at 310, ¶ 62.

Moreover, we have previously 39 STATE V. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MONTOYA Opinion of the Court rejected the argument that “the Sixth Amendment requires the defense to present mitigation despite the defendant’s waiver.” ¶ 119 (2012); see also Roscoe, 184 Ariz. at 499 (holding a defendant’s decision to not present mitigating evidence is a “personal decision .

¶ 23 (2012) (“We consider the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.”).

–79, ¶ 73 (2012) (allowing the admission of prior acts when the defendant “opened the door to such evidence”); (“We recognize that where one party injects improper or irrelevant evidence or argument, the ‘door is open,’ and the other party may have a right to retalia

¶¶ 3, 17 (2013) (after separately asking four men to murder five people, defendant committed requested murders himself two months later); ¶¶ 2, 47 (2012) (series of random drive-by shootings in Phoenix area from June 2005 to August 2006); 609 (App. 1995) (sexual behavior with four boys at defendant’s home “at various times in 1991 and 1992”).

¶ 71 (2012) (finding any evidentiary errors “harmless because the trial court instructed the jurors not to consider such evidence in determining if [the defendant] committed the alleged crimes”).

MacHardy correctly notes that our state constitution may provide a heightened standard of privacy as compared with our federal constitution, “at least in the context of physical intrusions into a home.”

§ 13-205.A; –79, ¶¶ 72–73 (2012) (no error in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior violent acts when the defendant opened the door to the evidence by testifying he was nonviolent and “would never harm anything”).

“Substantial evidence is evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 50 (2012) ().

e, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” The State must show the defendant committed the other acts by clear and convincing evidence, that the evidence is relevant, offered for a proper purpose, and consistent with Rule 403, and the “probative value must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” ¶ 69 (2012) (citation omitted).

To admit this “other-act” evidence under Rule 404(b), the state “must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other acts; they must be offered for a proper purpose; they must be relevant; and, consistent with Rule 403, their probative value must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” ¶ 69 (2012).

“Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Pena, 235 Ariz. at 279, ¶ 5 ( ¶ 50 (2012)).

See Pena, 235 Ariz. at 279 ¶ 5 ( ¶ 50 (2012)).

¶15 We review de novo the court’s denial of a Rule 20 motion, ¶ 168 (2016), and affirm the conviction if substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, ¶ 50 (2012); see Ariz. R. Crim.