Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schurz, 859 P.2d 156.

193 citing documents.

State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(noting that unfair prejudice under Rule 403 “‘means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,’ Fed.
State v. Hardy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hardy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Scott, 243 Ariz. at 188, ¶ 17 ().
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The admitted other act evidence was probative of the relevant issues at trial, and, thus, “was adversely probative in the sense that all good relevant evidence is.” ¶ 20 (2010) (concluding that other act 14 STATE v. CASTRO Decision of the Court evidence was not unfairly prejudicial in light of the defendant’s defenses, w
State v. Wilenchik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wilenchik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
However, “not all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial,” and, although “evidence that makes a defendant look bad may be prejudicial in the eyes of jurors, it is not necessarily unfairly so,” ¶ 9 (2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Unfair prejudice” means “an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ().
State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(explaining “good relevant evidence” is by nature “adversely probative,” but that alone does not render it “unfairly prejudicial”).
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(evidence which is “prejudicial” merely because it is relevant and material, while adverse to the opponent, is not barred by Rule 403).
State v. Cloud Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cloud Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Swisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Swisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(relevant evidence is generally adversely probative to the opposing party, but “prejudice” under Rule 403 “means an undue tendency to suggest decision on improper basis.
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
(noting that relevant evidence “may be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice”).
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(Not all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial, as evidence that is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(“not all harmful 4Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
In Arizona, we apply the analogous standard of fundamental error review when an instruction-related issue has not been preserved below, -55, -28 (1991), except in those very rare circumstances involving structural error, which is not present here.
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“[N]ot all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial.
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” Mott, 187 Ariz. at 545, 931 P.2d at 1055 ( ).
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denz 306 P.3d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denz 306 P.3d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶7 In addressing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we must presume “counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance” that 4 “‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
unfair prejudice.” Our supreme court has held that “[u]nfair prejudice ‘means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,’ such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” (citation omitted), quoting Fed.
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
See, e.g., King, 180 Ariz. at 286, 883 P.2d at 1042 (describing the thought out, deliberate killing to eliminate a witness as “cold-blooded”); (describing the deliberate, careful burning to death of a person who attempted to flee as “cold- blooded”); Gretzler, 135 Ariz at 58, 659 P.2d at 17 (describing the cold blooded murder of nine persons, including shooting sleeping children as they lay in the
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012