Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ives, 927 P.2d 762.

88 citing documents.

Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
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 e
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, 51 ¶ 38, ( ).
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
rejected on other grounds by State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102
State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, e.g., Bass, 198 Ariz. at 582, ¶ 45 , 12 P.3d at 807 (stating that cases in which improperly admitted evidence results in harmless error must have “a body of proof, firmly convincing on the essential facts, that the jury would have convicted even without the error.”); -12 , -72 (1996).
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
“We will not disturb the trial court’s selection of the jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen.” , (internal quotations omitted) ( , ), -08 , -68 (1996).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen.” (internal quotations omitted) 17 ( ), -08, -68 (1996).
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Followed State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
disapproved on other grounds, , .
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
-14 , -93 (1995), -08 , -68 (1996).
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
See, e.g., Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. at 408, 984 P.2d at 16
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Rule 404(b), Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
Courts must ensure that the defendant’s guilt is not proven “through excessively prejudicial evidence of other acts,” including evidence that tends to suggest that the jury should reach its “decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” , Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 61 , 906 P.2d at 594 .
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Among the purposes for which other act evidence is permitted, the one most closely resembling a pattern is a “common scheme or plan.” ¶ 24 The Arizona Supreme Court addressed the issue of a “common scheme or plan”
State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
109 , 769 (1996) (-97 , -89 (1993)).
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
For purposes of establishing this 404(b) exception, the other act evidence must establish “a particular plan of which the charged crime is a part.” -07 , -67 (1996).