Cited by

When other act evidence “is offered for a non-propensity purpose, it may be admissible under Rule 404(b), subject to Rule 402’s general relevance test, Rule 403’s balancing test, and Rule 105’s requirement for limiting instructions in appropriate circumstances.” ¶ 12 (2012).

-43, ¶¶ 15-20, - 13 (2012).

When other-act evidence “is offered for a non-propensity purpose, it may be admissible under Rule 404(b), subject to Rule 402’s general relevance test, Rule 403’s balancing test, and Rule 105’s requirement for limiting instructions in appropriate circumstances.” ¶ 12 (2012).

Rather, intrinsic evidence is “evidence of acts that are so interrelated with the charged act that they are part of the charged act,” ¶ 20, and it is thus admissible without regard to Rule 404(b), ¶ 21

The court denied the motion, explaining: 1) Under State v. 3 ¶ 20 (2012), if propensity evidence is required to prove the crime charged, it is not subject to Rule 404 analysis, and “defendant’s prior convictions are a necessary element of the crime of aggravated domestic violence”; 2) as to Rule 403, “the evidence is both relevant and probative” and the prejudice inherent

tly the weight of identification testimony that has some questionable feature.” Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 116; ¶ 27, (noting that weaknesses in a witness’s testimony go not to admissibility, but “to [the testimony’s] weight and credibility, both matters for the jury to consider”), P.3d 509 (2012).

P. 13.5(b); abrogated on other grounds by

3 STATE v. TURNER Decision of the Court charged act.” ¶ 20

3 -43, ¶¶ 15-20, -13 (2012).

When other-act evidence “is offered for a non-propensity purpose, it may be admissible under Rule 404(b), subject to Rule 402’s general relevance test, Rule 403’s balancing test, and Rule 105’s requirement for limiting instructions in appropriate circumstances.” ¶ 12

e of the evidence, that the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth made a false statement to obtain the warrant and that the false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.” ¶ 42, (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), ¶ 20

“A declaration of mistrial is the most dramatic remedy for trial error and is appropriate only when justice will be thwarted if the current jury is allowed to consider the case.” ¶ 68, ¶ 20

¶33 ¶ 26, P.3d 509 (2012), to argue that due process concerns can sometimes be implicated “in the absence of state action” when “evidence lacking in foundation reaches the jury under circumstances that do not afford a defendant an opportunity to point out its weaknesses.” The concerns set forth in Nordstrom are not implica

¶ 11 Intrinsic evidence is evidence that “(1) directly proves the charged act, or (2) is performed contemporaneously with and directly facilitates commission of the charged act.” ¶ 20

(defendant must show juror “was biased and could not reasonably render a fair or impartial verdict”), -43 ¶¶ 15, 20, -13 (2012).

¶ 66, (finding cruelty where “[d]efensive wounds on [the victim’s] hands and wrists indicate that he was conscious for at least some of the attack and thus knew his wife was attacking him”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239

¶29 Rule 404(b) “appl[ies] only to evidence of ‘other’ crimes, wrongs, or acts.”

The purpose of Rule 404(b) is “‘to keep from the jury evidence that the defendant is prone to commit crimes or is otherwise a bad person.’” ¶ 23, (quoting United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 5 Although the State argued below and on appeal that the proffered evidence was admissible as intrinsic evidence, the trial court did not admit the evidence on that ground.

FURTHER ORDERED: Pursuant to Rule 31.19(i)(2), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of this Court’s