State v. Scott, 1 CA-CR 16-0348

In 1999 in Pennsylvania, Raymond J. Scott sexually assaulted a girlfriend: he forced her into a bedroom, restrained her with duct tape, threatened her with a gun and a scalpel, then was convicted of aggravated indecent assault.
Scott later moved to Arizona, married M.N., and they divorced but shared custody of children.
On December 25, 2013, Scott forced M.N. into his bedroom during a family gathering, produced a handgun, assaulted her sexually while threatening to shoot or stab, and at one point she escaped briefly to the living room before he grabbed her and dragged her back.
The State charged 14 counts; a jury convicted Scott of eight counts including two counts of kidnapping and several sexual and assault offenses. Scott was sentenced to a 25-year aggregate term.
On appeal Scott argued (1) the two kidnapping convictions were multiplicitous (double jeopardy) and (2) the trial court erred in admitting his 1999 Pennsylvania sexual-assault conviction under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Scott)	Held
Whether two kidnapping convictions were multiplicitous	Two separate kidnappings occurred: initial forcible bedroom restraint ending when victim ran to living room, and a subsequent re-restraint when defendant dragged her back	The restraint was continuous within the apartment; any brief movement did not end the original kidnapping so multiple counts punish the same offense	Not multiplicitous — victim’s brief escape constituted release and a new restraint occurred, supporting two kidnapping convictions
Whether admission of Scott’s 1999 sexual-assault conviction under Rule 404(b) was improper/unduly prejudicial	Prior act admissible to rebut defenses of consent and lack of specific intent (absence of mistake); probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instruction given	Admission was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 and should have been excluded	No abuse of discretion — prior act highly similar and relevant to intent/absence of mistake; probative value outweighed prejudice

State v. Brown, 217 Ariz. 617 (discussing multiplicity and statutory interpretation)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (multiplicity test: each offense must require proof of a fact the other does not)
State v. Braidick, 231 Ariz. 357 (conviction for multiple kidnappings requires release followed by new restraint)
State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 403 (restraint continues while victim compelled by fear)
State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. 408 (standard of review for admission of other-act evidence)
State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590 (intent as proper purpose for other-act evidence admission)
State v. Schurz, 176 Ariz. 46 (prejudice that flows from relevant, material evidence is not barred by Rule 403)