clear and convincing standard in Arizona

2018Decision of the Court 160, 169, ¶ 29 (App. 2008) (clear and convincing evidence of medical issue requires "evidence expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability"); State v. Renforth, 155 Ariz. 385, 387 (App. 1987) ("The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the factfinders in the correctness of their judgment, though not to such degree as is required to convict of crime.") (emphasis added). ¶23 Although post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") may const

2016"The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the factfinders in the correctness of their judgment, though not to such degree as is required to convict of crime.” State v. Renforth, 155 Ariz. 385, 387 , 746 P.2d 1315, 1317 (App. 1987). "[A] party who has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence must persuade the [fact-finder] that his or her claim is highly probable.” Id. at 388 , 746 P.2d at 1318 . 2 .

2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) ("[A] `firm belief or conviction' is truer to the clear and convincing standard ....") (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.")).

2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) ("[A] `firm belief or conviction' is truer to the clear and convincing standard ....") (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.")).

2025An award of punitive damages will be affirmed “if any reasonable view of the evidence would satisfy the clear and convincing standard.” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 184 Ariz. 120, 132 (App. 1995). ¶34 Ten Bridges argues there is no evidence it had an “evil mind” or intentionally tried to harm Vega Soto.

2016We will uphold the awarding of punitive damages if “any reasonable view of the evidence would satisfy the clear and convincing standard.” Hyatt Regency, 184 Ariz. at 132 .

2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) ("[A] `firm belief or conviction' is truer to the clear and convincing standard ....") (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.")).

2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) ("[A] `firm belief or conviction' is truer to the clear and convincing standard ....") (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.")).

2024And because the right to vote is a fundamental right, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 16 (1964), the petitioner must show that the alleged incapacitated person lacks the capacity to vote by clear and convincing evidence, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982) (holding that a clear and convincing standard of proof satisfied due process in terminating parental rights).

1982Pursuant to order of this court, it was revested with jurisdiction in order to review the file and after such review, found that the clear and convincing standard as dictated by Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), was met.

2024See also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 433 (1979) (holding that a clear and convincing standard of proof satisfied due process in civil commitments to mental hospital for an indefinite period). ¶24 The Attorney General argues that placing the burden on the ward is nonetheless constitutional because only a “modest quantum of evidence” is necessary to show a sufficient understanding to exercise the right to vote.

2024Id. at 424. ¶28 We next examine the facts of this case as they relate to each of the elements under a clear and convincing standard of proof. 12 BECK, ET AL.

2020M.H. 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. at 164, ¶ 10 . ¶16 A physician’s finding of “persistent or acute disability” must meet the definitional criteria provided in A.R.S. § 36-501(32).5 The inclusion of a “significant” impairment in the statute generally limits a physician’s finding of persistent or acute disability to instances where an untreated disorder has the probability of rising to a level of harm that would impair the individual’s judgment or capacity to recognize reality.

2014Such testimony shall state specifically the nature and extent of the danger to self or to others, the persistent or acute disability or the grave disability. “[T]he testimony from each physician must be to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability as to the statutory elements before a court may find that the clear and convincing standard [required to order involuntary treatment] has been met.” In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 160, 169, ¶ 29 , 204 P.3d 418 , 427 (App. 2008).

2008A.R.S. § 36-540; In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. 440, 445 , 897 P.2d 742, 747 (App.1995) (“The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the fact finders in the correctness of their judgment.”) (internal quotations omitted).

2008A.R.S. § 36-540; In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. 440, 445 , 897 P.2d 742, 747 (App.1995) (“The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the fact finders in the correctness of their judgment.”) (internal quotations omitted).

2004Compare State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 599 , 944 P.2d 1204, 1213 (1997) (finding that defendants descriptions of his involvement in different murders satisfied the clear and convincing standard for admissibility of the murders under Rule 404(b)).

2004Compare State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 599 , 944 P.2d 1204, 1213 (1997) (finding that defendants descriptions of his involvement in different murders satisfied the clear and convincing standard for admissibility of the murders under Rule 404(b)).

2003This court has rejected these arguments and reiterated its “preference for this instruction.” State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. *576 408, 418, ¶¶ 29-30, 984 P.2d 16, 26 (1999).

2003We rejected this argument in State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. 408, 418, ¶¶ 29-30 , 984 P.2d 16, 26 (1999). ‘We have clearly indicated our preference for this instruction . . . .” Id.

1998State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 599 , 944 P.2d 1204, 1213 (1997) (assessing on review whether evidence adduced at trial satisfied the clear-and-convincing test); Terrazas, 189 Ariz. at 584 , 944 P.2d at 1198 (assessing whether evidence admitted under preponderance standard would have been admitted under clear-and-convincing standard); cf. State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 422-23 , 763 P.2d 239, 242-43 (1988) (addressing the clear-and-convincing standard as discussed in State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61 , 730 P.2d 238 (App.1986), but preferring to define “clear and convincing” as “highly probable,” ci

1998State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 599 , 944 P.2d 1204, 1213 (1997) (assessing on review whether evidence adduced at trial satisfied the clear-and-convincing test); Terrazas, 189 Ariz. at 584 , 944 P.2d at 1198 (assessing whether evidence admitted under preponderance standard would have been admitted under clear-and-convincing standard); cf. State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 422-23 , 763 P.2d 239, 242-43 (1988) (addressing the clear-and-convincing standard as discussed in State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61 , 730 P.2d 238 (App.1986), but preferring to define “clear and convincing” as “highly probable,” ci

2025See State v. Herrera, 232 Ariz. 536 , 546 ¶ 26 (App. 2013) (finding the court did not abuse its discretion in finding victim’s testimony “was sufficient to allow the jury to find [defendant] had committed the” other acts); State v. Vega, 228 Ariz. 24 , 29 ¶ 19 (App. 2011), as amended (Nov. 9, 2011) (finding victim’s testimony satisfied the clear-and-convincing requirement of Rule 404(c)). ¶15 Gavina counters that the other-act witnesses’ statements lack specific details, such as time or place, to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard.

2018See State v. Vega, 228 Ariz. 24 , 29 ¶ 19 & n.4 (App. 2011) (holding “victim’s in-person testimony satisfied the clear-and- convincing requirement of Rule 404(c)(1)(A)).

2025It also argues its conduct did not harm Vega Soto and instead benefitted him “to the tune of $10,000 he would not have otherwise had.” ¶35 “To determine whether sufficient evidence exists that a defendant acted with an evil mind, a court examines factors such as the reprehensibility of the conduct, the severity of harm that was actually or potentially imposed and the defendant’s awareness of it, the duration of the misconduct, and any concealment of the risk of harm.” Hudgins, 221 Ariz. at 487 ¶ 40 (citing cases).

2012Hudgins v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 221 Ariz. 472, 487, ¶ 40 , 212 P.3d 810, 825 (App.2009).

2013We review legal questions, including questions of constitutional law, de novo, id. ¶¶ 22, 55, but we will not upset a legal determination that evidence was insufficient to meet a clear and convincing standard unless we can say “as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find that the evidence ... was less than clear and convincing.” Groth v. Martel, 126 Ariz. 102, 103 , 612 P.2d 1065, 1066 (App.1979); see also State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, ¶ 15 , 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011) (“[Q]uestion of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law....”). ¶ 7 In Atkins , the United States Supreme Court held

2013We review legal questions, including questions of constitutional law, de novo, id. ¶¶ 22, 55, but we will not upset a legal determination that evidence was insufficient to meet a clear and convincing standard unless we can say “as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find that the evidence . . . was less than clear and convincing.” Groth v. Martel, 126 Ariz. 102, 103 , 612 P.2d 1065, 1066 (App. 1979); see also State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, ¶ 15 , 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011) (“[Q]uestion of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law . . . .”). ¶7 In Atkins, the United States Supreme Court

2025See In re Matter of Wood, 257 Ariz. 549 , 557, ¶ 23 (App. 2024) (The court applied a clear and convincing evidence standard to revoke an individual’s fundamental right to vote because of incapacity, citing Santosky, 455 U.S. at 769 .); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750-51 (1987) (When an articulable threat is proved by clear and convincing evidence, pretrial detention with no release conditions does not impede the fundamental right to liberty.). ¶18 Other states have applied a clear and convincing evidentiary standard for third-party visitation, either to rebut a fit parent’s visitat

2025See State v. Herrera, 232 Ariz. 536 , 546 ¶ 26 (App. 2013) (finding the court did not abuse its discretion in finding victim’s testimony “was sufficient to allow the jury to find [defendant] had committed the” other acts); State v. Vega, 228 Ariz. 24 , 29 ¶ 19 (App. 2011), as amended (Nov. 9, 2011) (finding victim’s testimony satisfied the clear-and-convincing requirement of Rule 404(c)). ¶15 Gavina counters that the other-act witnesses’ statements lack specific details, such as time or place, to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard.

2024Calthorpe v. Abrahamson, 441 A.2d 284, 289 (Me. 1982) (“The proof of acquiescence must be clear and convincing since recognition of such a boundary has the effect of transferring ownership of the disputed property without requiring compliance with the Statute of Conveyances.”); Manz v. Bohara, 367 N.W.2d 743, 748 (N.D. 1985) (concluding that “one claiming property to the exclusion of the true owner through the doctrine of acquiescence” must prove it by clear and convincing evidence just as a claim of adverse possession must be proved); and City of Deadwood, 607 N.W.2d at 27 (“The burden of pro

2024And because the right to vote is a fundamental right, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 16 (1964), the petitioner must show that the alleged incapacitated person lacks the capacity to vote by clear and convincing evidence, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982) (holding that a clear and convincing standard of proof satisfied due process in terminating parental rights).

2024Calthorpe v. Abrahamson, 441 A.2d 284, 289 (Me. 1982) (“The proof of acquiescence must be clear and convincing since recognition of such a boundary has the effect of transferring ownership of the disputed property without requiring compliance with the Statute of Conveyances.”); Manz v. Bohara, 367 N.W.2d 743, 748 (N.D. 1985) (concluding that “one claiming property to the exclusion of the true owner through the doctrine of acquiescence” must prove it by clear and convincing evidence just as a claim of adverse possession must be proved); and City of Deadwood, 607 N.W.2d at 27 (“The burden of pro

2024The term ‘may’ indicates discretion.” 250 Ariz. 518, ¶ 14 (alteration added).

2024See Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-20-0011 (Aug. 27, 2020). ¶19 Here, however, the trial court relied on State v. Fish, 222 Ariz. 109 (App. 2009), in applying a clear and convincing standard as a precondition to the admission of a non-defendant’s relevant prior acts.

2024See 222 Ariz. 109, ¶¶ 41, 43 (App. 2009) (self-defense context).

2024Ass'n v. Carr, 186 Ariz. 146, 149 (App. 1996), this Court has never set forth why such a standard applies. 7 Compare Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 1 (“A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.”) (emphasis added), with Virginia Declaration of Rights, § 15 (“That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”) (emphasis added); compare Ariz. Co

2024Calthorpe v. Abrahamson, 441 A.2d 284, 289 (Me. 1982) (“The proof of acquiescence must be clear and convincing since recognition of such a boundary has the effect of transferring ownership of the disputed property without requiring compliance with the Statute of Conveyances.”); Manz v. Bohara, 367 N.W.2d 743, 748 (N.D. 1985) (concluding that “one claiming property to the exclusion of the true owner through the doctrine of acquiescence” must prove it by clear and convincing evidence just as a claim of adverse possession must be proved); and City of Deadwood, 607 N.W.2d at 27 (“The burden of pro

2022State v. Williams, 220 Ariz. 331, 334, ¶ 9 (App. 2008).