What Is Relevant Evidence in Arizona?

Posted on September 4, 2023 in Arizona Trials

Introduction:

In Arizona, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. This means that evidence is relevant if it can help the trier of fact (judge or jury) decide the case.

There are a few things to keep in mind about relevant evidence in Arizona:

• Relevant evidence is not always admissible. Even if evidence is relevant, it may still be excluded if it is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
• The judge decides whether evidence is relevant. The judge will consider the following factors:
  • The probative value of the evidence: This is the extent to which the evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue.
  • The prejudicial effect of the evidence: This is the extent to which the evidence is likely to inflame the minds of the jurors or make them more likely to decide the case against a party.
  • The availability of other evidence: If there is other evidence that is just as probative as the challenged evidence, the challenged evidence may be excluded.
  • The public interest in the fair administration of justice: The judge may also consider the public interest in ensuring that the truth is revealed, even if it means admitting evidence that is prejudicial.
• The parties can object to the admission of evidence that they believe is not relevant.

Examples of relevant evidence in Arizona:

• A witness’s testimony about what they saw or heard.
• A document or object that is related to the case.
• The results of a scientific test.
• A confession or admission by a party to the case.

Conclusion:

Relevant evidence is an important part of the legal process. It can help the trier of fact decide the case and get to the truth. If you are involved in a legal case, it is important to speak to an attorney about what evidence is relevant to your case.

Citations:

• Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rule 401. Relevant Evidence.
• Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rule 402. Admissibility of Relevant Evidence.
• Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons.
• Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence.

https://www.azcourts.gov/portals/20/ad%20hoc%20evidence%20committee/rulesevidxoutvers.pdf

Attorney Fees in Arizona Courts

Posted on October 10, 2018 in Arizona Real Estate

At the real estate, contract, commercial and fraud recovery law firm of William A. Miller, located in in Scottsdale Arizona, we are often asked: “may I get my attorney fees back”? This is a big issue to ponder for folks about to file a lawsuit. We have heard it for 30 plus years. In fact, the Attorney Fees Manual for the State of Arizona is about 4 inches thick. When may attorney fees be awarded to the winner? As a general rule, in tort claims, seldom. In contract claims or those that arise out of certain statutes, the answer is often, very often. Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals in Cook v. Grebe allowed attorney fees in spite of the plaintiff losing many of his claims. The loss of claims is relevant only to the court’s determination of whether to actually award fees and in what percent. In Cook, two neighbors sued for claims over the ownership of property. The plaintiff claimed adverse possession and private nuisance. The defendant counterclaimed for quiet title, conversion, unjust enrichment, and trespass. The defendant prevailed on quiet title and trespass. The Plaintiff failed to prove conversion and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff lost on some claims, won on others. The trial court awarded partial fees to the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the partial fee award. A.R.S. § 12-1103 provides that the prevailing party in a quiet title action is eligible for a fee award. Here, that statute applied to both the quiet title and adverse possession claims and the defendant prevailed on those claims. The outcome of other claims does not affect who is the prevailing party that is eligible for fees under A.R.S. § 12-1103. Be careful of what claims you bring in a lawsuit. You can win, but ultimately, loose.

Feel free to call Bill Miller at 602-319-6899 to further discuss your case.

We also handle, Fraud, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title/escrow.

Arizona Law- Sometimes Grace

Posted on January 19, 2016 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Hiatt_v._Shah In 2010 upset Arizona investors sued a video developer in Maricopa County Court. There ended up being three separate cases. The Judge appointed a receiver to handle this. Later, in a settlement agreement the receiver issued Receivership Certificates to Hiatt and Shah granting them powerful purchase rights on receivership assets. The developer was unable…

Read More

Contractor v. Employee

Posted on October 3, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

The Kansas Supreme Court just issued an opinion that hundreds of truck drivers who delivered packages were employees and not independent contractors. This has huge tax, benefit and healthcare repercussions for FedEx. According to the court, the drivers sued FedEx alleging they were improperly classified as independent contractors under the law. The drivers are seeking…

Read More

Saint Thomas More

Posted on August 17, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

If you ever saw the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding you would remember that the bride’s father thought that Windex could cure all ills and that the Greeks’ were responsible for all of western civilization’s great accomplishments. That was hilarious. I still love that movie. As I approach 27 years as a trial lawyer…

Read More