Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Terrazas, 944 P.2d 1194.

132 citing documents.

State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
isite for admitting evidence under Rule 404(c), “the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other act.” , n.1 , , 511 n.1 (2012) (noting “[t]he state must prove *131 that the defendant committed the other act” , as source of heightened standard of proof); ¶¶ 30, 34 , 875 (2004) (citing Terrazas and emphasizing trial court should focus on whether clear and convincing evidence establishes defendant committed other crimes).
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(Martone, J., dissenting) (noting that “[t]here is no per se exclusionary rule for ‘other act’ evidence offered for a proper purpose.”) (citation omitted).
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In addition, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and the defendant committed the act.4
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 54, 25 P.3d at 736; –82, –96 (1997).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[B]efore admitting evidence of prior bad acts, trial judges must find that there is clear and convincing proof both as to the commission of the other bad act and that the [witness] committed the act.”
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A trial court has discretion to admit other act evidence under Rule 404(b) if the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other act, it is offered for a purpose other than to show propensity to commit the charged act, it is relevant under Rule 402, its relevance is not substantially outweighed by potential for unfair prejudice under Rule 403, and the court provides a limiting instruction if requested under Rule 105
State v. Najar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Najar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.4 ¶ 19, n.4 (App. 2011) (noting victim’s testimony is sufficient basis on which to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that other incidents occurred).
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
¶ 33, (citing State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580, 582, ).
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
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
( - 3 - ¶7 Arizona opinions provide imprecise guidance about the proper application of sections (b) and (c) of Rule 404, particularly in sex offense cases.
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“[F]or prior bad acts to be admissible in a criminal ease, the profferer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the prior bad acts were committed and that the defendant committed the acts.”); , , *66 1241 (App.1977)
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
¶36 Chappell first argues the trial court erred by finding inapplicable at the penalty phase Arizona Rule of Evidence 403 and the standards articulated in State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580, 584, (“[B]efore admitting evidence of prior bad acts [under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b)], trial judges must find that there is clear and convincing proof both as to the commission of the
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
The proponent must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the act, and the court must then “(1) find that the act is offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); (2) find that the prior act is relevant to prove that purpose; (3) find that any probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; and (4) give upon request an ap
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
act[] [was] committed and that the defendant committed the act[].”
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
Although the jury must ultimately determine whether the other act is proved, “before admitting evidence of prior bad acts, trial judges must find that there is clear and convincing proof both as to the commission of the other bad act and that the defendant committed the act.”