Cited by

n.2 (1993) (“[O]nce Arizona adopted its Rules of Evidence, all prior evidentiary decisions in conflict with those rules were superseded.”).

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has “an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” (cleaned up).

“But not all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial” because “evidence which is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.”

¶ 105 (2006) (While a disparity in sentences between co-defendants can be a mitigating circumstance, “[o]nly the unexplained disparity is significant.”); (When a disparity in sentences results from an appropriate plea agreement, disparity is not mitigating.); (“[T]he disparity between the sentence of a defendant sentenced to death and a co-defendant or accomplice sentenced to some term of imprisonment” is a mitigating factor when unexplained.).

such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ().

Rather, our supreme court has clarified that unfair prejudice in this context “means an undue tendency to suggest decisions on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” (cleaned up).

such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ¶ 40 (2012) (alteration in original) ().

such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” (alteration in Riley) ().

As such, the photographs were “[a]dverse, yes; unfairly prejudicial, no.”

Unfair prejudice exists if the evidence tends to cause the jury to make a decision based on “emotion, sympathy or horror.”

“But not all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial” because “evidence which is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.”

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” (citation omitted).

such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ¶ 70 (2020) ().

As applied, evidence that bolsters a witness’ credibility is not unfairly prejudicial, but rather is “adversely probative in the sense that all good relevant evidence is.”

“[N]ot all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial.”

Moreover, “not all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial,” and “evidence which is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.”

(unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis such as emotion, sympathy, or horror).

After all, evidence which is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.”

see also Lee, 189 Ariz. at 599–600.

such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” (quotation omitted).

such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Fed.

(“[E]vidence which is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.”).