Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Prion, 52 P.3d 189.

83 citing documents.

State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
When determining whether to admit such evidence, a court must first determine its relevance, then engage in “the normal [Rule] 403 weighing analysis between relevance, on the one hand, and prejudice or confusion on the other.” ¶ 22 (2002).
State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The phrase “otherwise connected together in their commission” must be interpreted narrowly—it is not merely “a catch-all for cases in which some logical connection exists between unrelated crimes.” ¶ 35 (2002).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Charges are “connected together in their commission” when evidence of the charges “[is] so intertwined and related that much the same evidence was relevant to and would prove [all the charges sought to be joined], and the crimes themselves arose out of a series of connected acts.” ¶ 32 (2002).
State v. Borquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Borquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
193, ¶¶ 16, 27 (App. 1999) (reversing defendant’s conviction due to erroneous admission of evidence under Rule 404(b) and noting that the trial court “did not apply the clear and convincing” standard or “conduct any Rule 403 inquiry” when admitting the “other act” evidence); ¶ 43 (2002) (“[A]berrant sexual propensity evidence under Evidence Rule 404(c) .
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Miranda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Miranda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Machado, 226 Ariz. at 285, ¶ 24 (addressing an anonymous phone call wherein the caller confessed to the charged crime and "powerful indications" existed that the third party, not the defendant, was the caller); -62, ¶ 25 (2002) (discussing evidence showing an identified third party had the motive and opportunity to commit the charged offense).
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
2 STATE v. HANLEY Decision of the Court evidence under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show “modus operandi,” “pattern and characteristics” that are “so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature,” ¶ 38 (2002) (citation omitted), and under Rule 404(c) to “show that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit” sexual assault, a predicate for the felony murder charge.
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶13 “The admissibility of third party culpability evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” ¶ 21 (2002).
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
DISCUSSION ¶7 “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 47 (2008) ( ¶ 14 (2002)).
State v. Stelmasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelmasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 62 (2004) ( ¶ 14 (2002), ¶ 21 (2004)).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
–64 ¶ 51, –17 (2009); ¶ 21
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 32 (2002) (citations omitted) (“The ‘otherwise connected together in their commission’ language addresses whether evidence of the two crimes was so intertwined and related that much the same evidence was relevant to and would prove both, and the crimes themselves arose out of a series of connected acts.”); Sta
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
is permissible if the offenses “[a]re based on the same conduct or are otherwise connected together in their commission.” Offenses are “otherwise connected together in their commission” when “evidence of the two crimes was so intertwined and related that much the same evidence was relevant to and would prove both, and the crimes themselves arose out of a series of connected acts.” ¶ 32 (2002).
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 37 (2002) (“For other act evidence to be admissible, it must be shown by the clear and convincing standard that the act was committed and that the defendant committed it.”).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
at ¶ 12; ¶ 15, (“There is no need to perform a Biggers analysis when the identification is not the result of state action.”).
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
SOURCES: [, 193] (2002); [, 1003] (2002); [People] v. Henderson, 110 Cal.
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Prince (Prince I), ¶ 17, ¶ 32