Cited by

Quintero clarified in his motion for reconsideration that this was a claim under Rule 32.1(g) 5 STATE v. QUINTERO Decision of the Court which held that certain profile evidence was inadmissible, constituted a significant change in the law.

State v. Ketchner (Ketchner I), ¶ 2 (2014).

¶26 “Profile evidence tends to show that a defendant possesses one or more of an informal compilation of characteristics or an abstract of characteristics typically displayed by persons engaged in a particular kind of activity.” ¶ 15 (2014) (cleaned up).

The Arizona Supreme Court has opined that “profile evidence” may not be used as substantive proof of guilt because of the “risk that a defendant will be convicted not for what he did but for what others are doing.” ().

¶ 12 (2002) (doctrine of waiver is discretionary); ¶ 17 n.4 (App. 2008) (same); –66, ¶ 20 (2014) (conducting harmless-error review despite State’s failure to argue error was harmless in brief).

typically displayed by persons engaged in a particular kind of activity.” ¶ 15 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Indeed, Suazo argues the State presented testimony that “created a high risk that the jury would convict” him, not for his own conduct, but for the conduct of others.

Profile evidence is evidence that “tends to show that a defendant possesses one or more of an informal compilation of characteristics or an abstract of characteristics typically displayed by persons engaged in a particular kind of activity.” ¶ 15 (2014) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

¶ 13 (2014); ¶ 6 (2016).

Id.; ¶¶ 20-26, -50 (2014) (conducting harmless error review despite state’s failure to argue error was harmless in brief).