State v. Shreve, 1 CA-CR 16-0230

In 2014 automated software flagged two files (“Little Pearl” and “Showgirls”) containing hundreds of images of young girls; ISP records tied the IP to Joseph E. Shreve, Jr. and police obtained a search warrant in April 2015.
Officers found multiple computers, hard drives, 137 labeled DVDs, and an album of nude children; some DVDs contained child pornography and most children viewed were about 8–12 years old.
Shreve admitted he downloaded child pornography for roughly ten years, made backup DVDs with homemade labels, was the sole computer user, and preferred girls aged 10–14.
A specialist confirmed the charged images depicted girls under 15; Shreve was indicted on nine counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.
Before the bench trial, the State sought to admit the uncharged DVDs, photo album, and computer images as other-acts evidence; the court admitted them as intrinsic or under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c) and overruled Rule 403 prejudice objections.
The trial court convicted Shreve on all nine counts and imposed consecutive ten-year sentences; Shreve appealed challenging other-acts admission and Eighth Amendment sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Shreve)	Held
Admissibility of other-acts evidence	Evidence of DVDs, album, and admissions shows aberrant sexual propensity and is admissible under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c) and not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403	The other-acts evidence was not intrinsic, and its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value under Rule 403	Court affirmed: evidence met 404(c) (clear and convincing proof plus reasonable inference of aberrant propensity) and was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; any error harmless given overwhelming evidence
Eighth Amendment challenge to consecutive sentencing under Arizona law	Sentencing scheme for dangerous crimes against children is constitutional and supports consecutive terms	State sentencing scheme constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment	Court rejected challenge, following Arizona Supreme Court precedent (Berger); sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment

State v. Granados, 235 Ariz. 321 (discusses abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Carlson, 237 Ariz. 381 (appellate courts may affirm for any legally correct reason)
State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421 (clarifies 404(c) clear-and-convincing requirement)
State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
State v. Armstrong, 176 Ariz. 470 (admission of defendant’s admissions to uncharged offenses)
State v. Connor, 215 Ariz. 553 (trial court’s broad discretion balancing probative value and unfair prejudice)
State v. Leteve, 237 Ariz. 516 (harmless-error standard for appellate review)
State v. Romero, 240 Ariz. 504 (recognizing overwhelming evidence can render admission error harmless)
State v. Berger, 212 Ariz. 473 (upholding Arizona’s sentencing scheme for dangerous crimes against children against Eighth Amendment challenge)
State v. McPherson, 228 Ariz. 557 (noting lower courts are bound by Berger and may not overrule it)