scheme or plan exception in Arizona

2015“The common scheme or plan exception requires something more than mere criminal tendencies.” Id.

1996Likewise, in State v. Henderson, the court seemed to question the common scheme or plan conclusion of State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), noting Kelly’s facts were “near the outer limits of the common scheme or plan exception.” Henderson, 116 Ariz. 310, 317-18 , 569 P.2d 252, 259-60 (App.1977).

1996Likewise, in State v. Henderson, the court seemed to question the common scheme or plan conclusion of State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), noting Kelly’s facts were “near the outer limits of the common scheme or plan exception.” Henderson, 116 Ariz. 310, 317-18 , 569 P.2d 252, 259-60 (App.1977).

1996Likewise, in State v. Henderson, the court seemed to question the common scheme or plan conclusion of State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), noting Kelly’s facts were “near the outer limits of the common scheme or plan exception.” Henderson, 116 Ariz. 310, 317-18 , 569 P.2d 252, 259-60 (App.1977).

1996Likewise, in State v. Henderson, the court seemed to question the common scheme or plan conclusion of State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), noting Kelly’s facts were “near the outer limits of the common scheme or plan exception.” Henderson, 116 Ariz. 310, 317-18 , 569 P.2d 252, 259-60 (App.1977).

1996Likewise, in State v. Henderson, the court seemed to question the common scheme or plan conclusion of State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), noting Kelly’s facts were “near the outer limits of the common scheme or plan exception.” Henderson, 116 Ariz. 310, 317-18 , 569 P.2d 252, 259-60 (App.1977).

1987Nude and semi-nude photos of a defendant’s former wife, taken prior to the time he committed sexual exploitation of his minor daughter, were held to have been properly admitted under the common scheme or plan exception in State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 493 , 720 P.2d 94 (App.1985), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 149 Ariz. 472 , 720 P.2d 73 (1986).

1987Nude and semi-nude photos of a defendant’s former wife, taken prior to the time he committed sexual exploitation of his minor daughter, were held to have been properly admitted under the common scheme or plan exception in State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 493 , 720 P.2d 94 (App.1985), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 149 Ariz. 472 , 720 P.2d 73 (1986).

1987Nude and semi-nude photos of a defendant’s former wife, taken prior to the time he committed sexual exploitation of his minor daughter, were held to have been properly admitted under the common scheme or plan exception in State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 493 , 720 P.2d 94 (App.1985), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 149 Ariz. 472 , 720 P.2d 73 (1986).

1987Nude and semi-nude photos of a defendant’s former wife, taken prior to the time he committed sexual exploitation of his minor daughter, were held to have been properly admitted under the common scheme or plan exception in State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 493 , 720 P.2d 94 (App.1985), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 149 Ariz. 472 , 720 P.2d 73 (1986).

1979State v. Finley, 108 Ariz. 420 , 501 P.2d 4 (1972).

1979State v. Finley, 108 Ariz. 420 , 501 P.2d 4 (1972).

1977Beyond those limits lies the strong policy against admitting evidence of another crime, forcefully expressed in State v. Moore, supra. Although as Kelly indicates the trial judge has some discretion in the matter, Moore quotes Oklahoma authority to the effect that any doubts are to be resolved in favor of excluding evidence of extraneous criminal conduct. 108 Ariz. at 218, 495 P.2d at 448 , quoting from Hardin v. State, 462 P.2d 357, 359-60 (Okla.Cr.1969).

1975Attention is also directed to our own case of State v. Finley, 85 Ariz. 327 , 338 P.2d 790 (1959) where the court held a prior rape admissible under the common scheme or plan exception under circumstances which can only be considered tenuous in comparison to the facts of this case.

1975Attention is also directed to our own case of State v. Finley, 85 Ariz. 327 , 338 P.2d 790 (1959) where the court held a prior rape admissible under the common scheme or plan exception under circumstances which can only be considered tenuous in comparison to the facts of this case.

1975Finally, on the issue of remoteness, in State v. Morgan, 207 Kan. 581 , 485 P.2d 1371 (1971), one of the prior rapes took place two years before the rape for which the defendant was charged.

1975Finally, on the issue of remoteness, in State v. Morgan, 207 Kan. 581 , 485 P.2d 1371 (1971), one of the prior rapes took place two years before the rape for which the defendant was charged.