Cited by

He argued that he should be allowed to obtain an order for the records ex parte under the work-product doctrine, the criminal procedure rules, and the supreme court’s

The party requesting a continuance must show “extraordinary circumstances exist” and state the reasons justifying the continuance with “specificity.” ¶ 8 (2012).

(finding substantial evidence of premeditation where “the murder itself was protracted, brutal, and involved a sustained attack on the victim”); (similar).

When this trial occurred, Rule 15.9 stated that an indigent defendant may apply to have an expert appointed at the county’s expense and that, upon showing the need for confidentiality, the request may be made ex parte.2 ¶ 11 (2012) (“[I]f VanWinkle was concerned about disclosing matters of trial strategy or work product, he could have requested an ex parte hearing [under Ariz. R. Crim.

We review the court’s admission of other-act evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 18 (2012), noting that a court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence at trial.

Yet, “evidence of other acts may be admissible under Rule 404(b) to show proof of ‘motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.’” ¶ 21 (2012) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.

¶ 16 (2012) (“Importantly, the jury watched surveillance video from which it could infer [the defendant]’s intent”).

ove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” But other-act evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proving the identity of the perpetrator of the charged offense, Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b), provided that “the evidence is relevant and the potential for prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value,” State v. (Pete J.) VanWinkle, ¶ 21, (citing Ariz. R. Evid.

To establish fundamental error, Lynch must show that “there was error that went to the foundation of his case and denied him a fair trial, and that he was, in fact, prejudiced by the error.” ¶ 25

Similarly, Dr. Cunningham’s rebuttal testimony was not timely disclosed and was therefore precluded, but was also irrelevant for the purpose offered.2 ¶16 Additionally, Burns fails to explain how a functional MRI scan would have aided his mitigation.3 Because Burns has not provided any basis for this argument, he has failed to demonstrate prejudice.4 ¶¶ 10–13

404(a), evidence of other acts may be admissible under Rule 404(b) to show ‘proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.’” ¶ 21, (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.

We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 53, which we will find only if the defendant demonstrates prejudice, ¶ 7

reflected on the decision before killing.” –92 ¶ 15, –13 (2012) ( ¶ 32, ) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert.