Cited by

because 11 STATE v. DIAZ Decision of the Court defendant was “the only adult in the house” when the injury occurred, defendant did not seek help immediately although need for medical treatment would have been apparent, and defendant made inconsistent statements about how injury occurred); (affirming defendant’s conviction for knowing or intentional child abuse and holding that defendant’s knowing failure to seek medical help for injured child showed “purposeful” action that “satisf[ied] the mens

Moreover, Ortiz has not shown that the flight evidence had an “undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror,” (citation omitted), or that it otherwise was inadmissible under Rule 403.

(stating courts should exclude relevant evidence if it "has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror").

“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”

¶23 Further, the testimony about Avery’s behavioral changes was not unduly prejudicial because it does not have “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”

Unfair prejudice can result from evidence that has an undue tendency to “suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”

criminal liability); –55 (1997) (holding that expert testimony of mental incapacity cannot be used to establish a diminished-capacity defense by negating a crime’s mens rea).

unfair prejudice.” “Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” ().

Under it, the court should exclude even relevant evidence if it “has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”

The State argued such testimony is not relevant, should be excluded under Arizona Rule of Evidence 403, and is improper diminished capacity evidence under Clark, 548 U.S. 735; Malone

“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”

A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence, Moody, 208 Ariz. at 467, ¶ 197, but a court does not err by refusing to give an instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case[] or is adequately covered by the other instructions,” (citation omitted); (“A trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.” (citation omitted)).

However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive or intent, Rule 404(b), provided it is “relevant under Rule 402, and that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice under Rule 403,”

“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”

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

3 STATE v. ROTHROCK Decision of the Court law.”); (“Because the legislature has not provided for a diminished capacity defense, we have since consistently refused to allow psychiatric testimony to negate specific intent.”).

(“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”).3 ¶27 Finally, Madrigal argues the number of other-act photographs and videos was cumulative, particularly considering the forensic analyst’s testimo

-46 (1997); see, ¶ 28 (App. 1999) (holding that prior-act evidence was prejudicial but not unduly so because it did not suggest a decision on an improper basis).