Cited by

“Arizona courts have long held that a homicide defendant who offers a defense of justification ‘should be permitted to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence by the deceased if the defendant either observed the acts himself or was informed of the acts before the homicide.’” Connor, 215 Ariz. at 559 ¶ 14 ().

¶19 Brown’s is unpersuasive.

As an example, “Arizona courts have long held that a murder defendant who defends on the basis of justification should be permitted to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence by the deceased if the defendant either observed the acts himself or was informed of the acts before the homicide.”

Even assuming harmless error review applies where the court erroneously denied a justification instruction despite the slightest evidence of justification, -24 , -91 (1991), the record does not support the state’s contention.

123, 490 (1991) 6 STATE v. ALMEIDA Opinion of the Court (defendant need not wait for violence or entry into home before taking defensive action).

( (“The list of ‘other purposes’ in rule 404(b) .

See Herrera, ¶¶ 12-13, 307 P.3d at 110; -26, -93 (1991).

(defendant asserting self-defense may introduce evidence of known specific acts of violence by the victim to show he or she “was justifiably apprehensive of the [victim]”); , (habit of victim in refusing to accept rides adm

We note, however, that we have repeatedly cautioned that “[t]here will be situations in which evidence sought to be introduced is more prejudicial than probative, and those situations are very likely to arise in the prior bad act context.” (“‘The discretion of the trial judge under Rule 403 to exclude otherwise relevant evidence because of the risk of prejudice should find its most frequent application in th[e 404(b)] area.’”) (quoting 1 Morris Udall et al., Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence § 8

¶ 14 Arizona courts have long held that a homicide defendant who offers a defense of justification “should be permitted to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence by the deceased if the defendant either observed the acts himself or was informed of the acts before the homicide.”

See, , Korzep, 165 Ariz. at 492 , 799 P.2d at 833 ; ¶ 5

(resident need not wait until assailant enters home to use force against assailant); , (resident entitled to § 13 — 411 instruction when force used to prevent crime by coresident); , (perso

See Salazar, 181 Ariz. at 91-92 , 887 P.2d at 621-22 (court has special obligation to balance potential prejudice of prior acts in molestation case); , ( , ) (a Rule 403 balancing “ ‘is important in analyzing any Rule 404(b) evidentiary question’ ”); Terrazas, 189 Ariz. at 583, 944 P.2d at 1197 (characterizing Rules 402, 403, and 105 as protective provisions in 404(b)

(encouraging explicit Rule 403 weighing).

In State v. Taylor, this court held that “[t]he Rule 403 balancing test ‘is important in analyzing any Rule 404(b) evidentiary question,’ ” , ( , cert.

State v. Cano; M. Udall, J. Livermore, P. Escher and G. Mcllvain, Arizona Practice Law of Evidence § 83 (3rd ed. 1991).

Thus, when such evidence is admitted solely to show identity, the trial court has a “special obligation to ensure that the probative value of the evidence for the purpose offered is sufficiently great in the context of the case to warrant running that risk.” Arizona Evidence § 84, at 180