identity exception in Arizona

2020“The identity exception to [Rule] 404(b) applies if identity is in issue, and if the behavior of the accused both on the occasion charged and on some other occasion is sufficiently distinctive, then proof that the accused was involved on the 3 STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court other occasion tends to prove his involvement in the crime charged.” State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, ¶ 58 (2016) (quoting State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 (1993)).

2018The identity exception to Rule 404(b) applies if identity is in issue, “and if the behavior of the accused both on the occasion charged and on some other occasion is sufficiently distinctive, then proof that the accused was involved on the other occasion tends to prove his involvement in the crime charged.“ State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 (1993) (quoting Morris K.

2014The identity exception to Rule 404(b) applies if identity is in issue and “the pattern and characteristics of the crimes . . . [are] so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 , 863 P.2d 881, 889 (1993) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 27 , 5 STATE V.

2002State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580, 582 , 944 P.2d 1194, 1196 (1997). ¶ 38 The identity exception to Rule 404 is applicable only where “the pattern and characteristics of the crimes ... are so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 , 863 P.2d 881, 889 (1993) (citations omitted); see also State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 27 , 918 P.2d 1038, 1045 (1996) (“[T]he modus operandi of and the circumstances surrounding the two crimes must be sufficiently similar as to be like a signature.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 39 Here, very little is known about what hap

2020Although “[t]he pattern and characteristics of the crimes must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature,” id. (quoting Stuard, 176 Ariz. at 597 ) “identity in every particular is not required. [T]here must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects ‘when normally there could be expected to be found differences.’” State v. Roscoe, 145 Ariz. 212, 216 (1984) (quoting State v. Jackson, 124 Ariz. 202, 204 (1979)).

2016“While identity in every particular is not required, there must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects when normally there could be expected to be found differences.” State v. Roscoe (Roscoe I), 145 Ariz. 212, 216 , 700 P.2d 1312, 1317 (1984) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ¶ 59 In addition to Rule 404(b), in criminal trials for sexual offenses, Rule 404(e) allows the admission of other-act evidence “if relevant to show that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the offense charged.” Ariz. R.

2014Van Adams, 194 Ariz.at 415, ¶ 20, 984 P.2d at 23 . ¶16 “The identity exception to Ariz. R.

2004See Van Adams, 194 Ariz. at 415, ¶ 20 , 984 P.2d at 23 . ¶ 19 “The identity exception to Ariz. R.

2020Although “[t]he pattern and characteristics of the crimes must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature,” id. (quoting Stuard, 176 Ariz. at 597 ) “identity in every particular is not required. [T]here must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects ‘when normally there could be expected to be found differences.’” State v. Roscoe, 145 Ariz. 212, 216 (1984) (quoting State v. Jackson, 124 Ariz. 202, 204 (1979)).

2020“The identity exception to [Rule] 404(b) applies if identity is in issue, and if the behavior of the accused both on the occasion charged and on some other occasion is sufficiently distinctive, then proof that the accused was involved on the 3 STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court other occasion tends to prove his involvement in the crime charged.” State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, ¶ 58 (2016) (quoting State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 (1993)).

2016“The identity exception to [Rule] 404(b) applies if identity is in issue, and if the behavior of the accused both on the occasion charged and on some other occasion is sufficiently distinctive, then proof that the accused was involved on the other occasion tends to prove his involvement in the crime charged.” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 , 863 P.2d 881, 889 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[T]he pattern and characteristics of the crimes must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also St

2016“The identity exception to [Rule] 404(b) applies if identity is in issue, and if the behavior of the accused both on the occasion charged and on some other occasion is sufficiently distinctive, then proof that the accused was involved on the other occasion tends to prove his involvement in the crime charged.” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 , 863 P.2d 881, 889 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[T]he pattern and characteristics of the crimes must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also St

2006Fed. 829 , 1987 WL 419509 (1987) (collecting ease law establishing different tests). ¶20 After the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, the “tests for determining the identity of a claim or cause of action ... developed concomitantly with the evolution of modern civil procedure.” Wagner, supra, at 836; see also Nevada, 463 U.S. at 130 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (noting that “definitions of what constitutes the ‘same cause of action’ have not remained static over time,” and citing the changes between the First and Second Restatements of Judgments). ‘With the adoption of the Federal R

2006Fed. 829 , 1987 WL 419509 (1987) (collecting ease law establishing different tests). ¶20 After the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, the “tests for determining the identity of a claim or cause of action ... developed concomitantly with the evolution of modern civil procedure.” Wagner, supra, at 836; see also Nevada, 463 U.S. at 130 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (noting that “definitions of what constitutes the ‘same cause of action’ have not remained static over time,” and citing the changes between the First and Second Restatements of Judgments). ‘With the adoption of the Federal R

2006Fed. 829 , 1987 WL 419509 (1987) (collecting ease law establishing different tests). ¶20 After the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, the “tests for determining the identity of a claim or cause of action ... developed concomitantly with the evolution of modern civil procedure.” Wagner, supra, at 836; see also Nevada, 463 U.S. at 130 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (noting that “definitions of what constitutes the ‘same cause of action’ have not remained static over time,” and citing the changes between the First and Second Restatements of Judgments). ‘With the adoption of the Federal R

2006Fed. 829 , 1987 WL 419509 (1987) (collecting ease law establishing different tests). ¶20 After the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, the “tests for determining the identity of a claim or cause of action ... developed concomitantly with the evolution of modern civil procedure.” Wagner, supra, at 836; see also Nevada, 463 U.S. at 130 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (noting that “definitions of what constitutes the ‘same cause of action’ have not remained static over time,” and citing the changes between the First and Second Restatements of Judgments). ‘With the adoption of the Federal R

2002State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580, 582 , 944 P.2d 1194, 1196 (1997). ¶ 38 The identity exception to Rule 404 is applicable only where “the pattern and characteristics of the crimes ... are so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 , 863 P.2d 881, 889 (1993) (citations omitted); see also State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 27 , 918 P.2d 1038, 1045 (1996) (“[T]he modus operandi of and the circumstances surrounding the two crimes must be sufficiently similar as to be like a signature.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 39 Here, very little is known about what hap

2002State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580, 582 , 944 P.2d 1194, 1196 (1997). ¶ 38 The identity exception to Rule 404 is applicable only where “the pattern and characteristics of the crimes ... are so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 597 , 863 P.2d 881, 889 (1993) (citations omitted); see also State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 27 , 918 P.2d 1038, 1045 (1996) (“[T]he modus operandi of and the circumstances surrounding the two crimes must be sufficiently similar as to be like a signature.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 39 Here, very little is known about what hap

1993Cf. Miller, 269 Cal.Rptr. at 509-10 , 790 P.2d at 1306-07 (numerous similarities among murders and attempted murders of homosexual men); Hall, 307 N.W.2d at 297-99 (numerous similarities among robberies during which one murder and one attempted murder occurred). 4 This, however, does not end our inquiry. d.

1993Cf. Miller, 269 Cal.Rptr. at 509-10 , 790 P.2d at 1306-07 (numerous similarities among murders and attempted murders of homosexual men); Hall, 307 N.W.2d at 297-99 (numerous similarities among robberies during which one murder and one attempted murder occurred). 4 This, however, does not end our inquiry. d.

1993Cf. Miller, 269 Cal.Rptr. at 509-10 , 790 P.2d at 1306-07 (numerous similarities among murders and attempted murders of homosexual men); Hall, 307 N.W.2d at 297-99 (numerous similarities among robberies during which one murder and one attempted murder occurred). 4 This, however, does not end our inquiry. d.

1993Cf. Miller, 269 Cal. Rptr. at 509-10 , 790 P.2d at 1306-07 (numerous similarities among murders and attempted murders of homosexual men); Hall, 307 N.W.2d at 297-99 (numerous similarities among robberies during which one murder and one attempted murder occurred). [4] This, however, does not end our inquiry. d.

1989Although we recognize this ground for admissibility of prior bad act evidence, State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 433-34 , 687 P.2d 1180, 1188-89 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1040 , 105 S.Ct. 521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); State v. Chaney, 141 Ariz. 295, 309 , 686 P.2d 1265, 1279 (1984); we need not address that issue here because we find the evidence admissible under the identity exception.

1989Although we recognize this ground for admissibility of prior bad act evidence, State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 433-34 , 687 P.2d 1180, 1188-89 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1040 , 105 S.Ct. 521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); State v. Chaney, 141 Ariz. 295, 309 , 686 P.2d 1265, 1279 (1984); we need not address that issue here because we find the evidence admissible under the identity exception.

1989Although we recognize this ground for admissibility of prior bad act evidence, State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 433-34 , 687 P.2d 1180, 1188-89 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1040 , 105 S.Ct. 521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); State v. Chaney, 141 Ariz. 295, 309 , 686 P.2d 1265, 1279 (1984); we need not address that issue here because we find the evidence admissible under the identity exception.

1989Although we recognize this ground for admissibility of prior bad act evidence, State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 433-34 , 687 P.2d 1180, 1188-89 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1040 , 105 S.Ct. 521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); State v. Chaney, 141 Ariz. 295, 309 , 686 P.2d 1265, 1279 (1984); we need not address that issue here because we find the evidence admissible under the identity exception.

1989State v. Smith, 146 Ariz. 491, 499 , 707 P.2d 289, 297 (1985). *5 However, in order for a prior crime to be admissible under the identity exception, the modus operandi and circumstances of the two crimes must be sufficiently similar.

1989State v. Smith, 146 Ariz. 491, 499 , 707 P.2d 289, 297 (1985). *5 However, in order for a prior crime to be admissible under the identity exception, the modus operandi and circumstances of the two crimes must be sufficiently similar.

1989State v. Brown, 125 Ariz. 160, 161 , 608 P.2d 299, 300 (1980) (in a prosecution for robbery of two bowling alleys, the Court admitted evidence of a prior bowling alley robbery where all three robberies involved “casing” of the lanes while using the pinball machines, using a bowling bag to conceal the weapon and carry the stolen cash, and failing to conceal identity).

1989State v. Brown, 125 Ariz. 160, 161 , 608 P.2d 299, 300 (1980) (in a prosecution for robbery of two bowling alleys, the Court admitted evidence of a prior bowling alley robbery where all three robberies involved “casing” of the lanes while using the pinball machines, using a bowling bag to conceal the weapon and carry the stolen cash, and failing to conceal identity).

1980See State v. Padilla, 122 Ariz. 378, 595 P.2d 170 (1979).

1980See State v. Padilla, 122 Ariz. 378, 595 P.2d 170 (1979).

1967We agree with the California court which stated: “The existence of the privilege of nondisclosure depends on the ‘materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense.’ ” People v. Durazo, 52 Cal.2d 354 , 340 P.2d 594 , 76 A.L.R.2d 257, 259 (1959).

1967We agree with the California court which stated: “The existence of the privilege of nondisclosure depends on the ‘materiality of the informer’s identity to the defense.’ ” People v. Durazo, 52 Cal.2d 354 , 340 P.2d 594 , 76 A.L.R.2d 257, 259 (1959).