Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mott, 931 P.2d 1046.

212 citing documents.

State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶20 The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine to preclude Lopez from introducing evidence of his 2001 brain injury and resulting mental disability, finding that, –45, –55 (1997), such information was inadmissible “diminished capacity” evidence.
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Unfair prejudice may exist “if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy or horror.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
(upholding child abuse conviction, relying partly on victim’s malnourishment).4 ¶78 Sufficient evidence was also presented that the circumstances existing when the abuse occurred were likely to cause seriou
State v. Buot 306 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Buot 306 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(proximate-cause instruction given when causation in issue and instruction helpful to jury), P.2d 1046 (1997).6 5 Almaguer also seems to argue he was entitled to a causation instruction because the “cause of death [wa]s an issue.” But the uncontroverted testimony demonstrated there was a fight, Almaguer produced the only gun, no one but Almaguer fired it, and the victim died as a result
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
at 34-35, 628 P.2d at 582-83; see State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 544, (“[Christensen] attempted to show that he possessed a character trait of acting reflexively in response to stress.”).
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
“Not all harmful evidence, however, is unfairly prejudicial.” -56, -56 (1997).
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Arizona, our legislature expressly has precluded it from being used “either as an affirmative defense or to negate the mens rea element of a crime.” (second emphasis added).
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
¶ 16, 1 Rudolph J. Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona 1-2 (2d ed. 1993) (noting the Commission’s “research[]” into the MPC).
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Unfair prejudice exists “if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
the court held that the legislature’s rejection of the diminished capacity defense was also a bar on "evidence of a defendant’s mental disorder short of insanity ...
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
These deficiencies included Mr. Wright’s low IQ, his deficient test results including but not limited to his common sense, difficulties with detail and his child-like aspirations for the future.” P.2d 1046 (1997).
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
The prejudice that Rule 403 speaks to is that which suggests a “decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(Model Penal Code is a source of current Arizona criminal statutes); Rudolph J. Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona, Author’s Preface IV, at vi (1978)
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
“[W]hen a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.”
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
See, -41, -51 (1997) (legislature decides whether “to adopt the defense of diminished capacity” and the “Court does not have the authority” to do so), -13, Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 24(a), at 86 (1984) (“Legislatur
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
But relevant evidence is inadmissible under Rule 403 if it “has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
§ 13-103(A) , but we find no inconsistency.
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999