State v. Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239

Ferrero was charged with three counts of sexual conduct with a minor.
Evidence of uncharged acts with the minor was admitted to show Ferrero's sexual disposition, without Rule 404(c) screening.
Jury instructions permitted using that evidence to show a propensity to commit the charged offenses.
Court of Appeals reversed on two counts and remanded for harmless error analysis; first two counts remanded for new trial.
Arizona Supreme Court held Garner evidence is not always intrinsic and Rule 404(c) applies when evidence shows aberrant sexual propensity.
Court remanded for a new trial with instructions on 404(c) screening if evidence is offered to prove propensity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garner evidence is always intrinsic to the charged act.	Ferrero argues Garner evidence is intrinsic.	State contends Garner evidence may be governed by 404(c) when used to prove propensity.	Garner evidence not inherently intrinsic; 404(c) applies if propensity proof.
How intrinsic evidence is defined for Arizona Rule 404 in sex offenses.	Intrinsic evidence should include acts directly proving the charged act.	Intrinsic should include acts necessary to the charged act or contemporaneously facilitating it.	Adopt Green's narrow intrinsic-evidence definition: direct proof or contemporaneous facilitation.
Whether the uncharged act of forcing exposure was intrinsic to the charged act.	Exposure evidence shows propensity to engage in sexual misconduct.	Exposure was not intrinsic; not contemporaneous with the charged act.	Exposure evidence not intrinsic; must be screened under Rule 404(c) if propensity evidence.
Application of Rule 404(c) screening to uncharged acts offering propensity evidence on remand.	Uncharged acts offered to show propensity must be screened under 404(c).	Some acts could be non-propensity purposes under 404(b).	On remand, determine purpose; if propensity, apply 404(c); if non-propensity, use 404(b) with limits.

State v. Garner, 116 Ariz. 443 ((1977)) (prior similar sex acts admissible to show lewd disposition toward victim)
State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229 ((2001)) (intrinsic evidence limits; too remote acts not intrinsic)
State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497 ((2007)) (rules for intrinsic evidence as narrowed to narrowly defined categories)
State v. Garcia, 200 Ariz. 471 ((App. 2001)) (Garner evidence treated as subject to Rule 404(c) screening)
Green v. United States, 617 F.3d 233 ((3d Cir. 2010)) (defines intrinsic evidence narrowly: directly proves or contemporaneously facilitates)