State v. Vega, 228 Ariz. 24

Vega was convicted by a jury of five sex crimes against his two nieces aged six and 11.
Before trial the State disclosed a police report alleging an uncharged beach incident involving the older victim.
The court admitted the beach evidence under Rule 404(b) and instructed the jury it could consider it to show a predisposition to commit abnormal sexual acts.
Vega objected at trial, arguing the court failed to apply Rule 404(c) requirements; the court did not make explicit Rule 404(c) findings.
On appeal, Vega challenges the admissibility of the beach incident evidence and related instructional errors, as well as the denial of impeachment testimony for his daughter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether beach incident evidence was admissible under Rule 404(c) and properly screened	Vega argues insufficient Rule 404(c) findings were made.	Vega contends the evidence should be admissible under Rule 404(b) or 404(c) without improper prejudice.	Error occurred in excluding proper Rule 404(c) screening, but harmless
Whether the court erred by instructing the jury the beach evidence could show predisposition	Beaches evidence supports aberrant sexual propensity as to charged acts.	Evidence should be allowed as 404(c) proof of a trait without improper use.	Court erred in the instruction but error was harmless
Whether admission of the beach incident on charges involving the younger girl was harmless	Beach incident prejudiced the younger-girl charges.	Evidence relevant and not unfairly prejudicial given other related testimony.	Harmless beyond reasonable doubt
Whether the beach incident evidence was properly analyzed for the older-girl charges	Rule 404(c) analysis should apply similarly to the older victim.	If error occurred, it is harmless in light of trial record.	Harmless; no reversal on older-girl charges
Whether Vega's daughter could testify to impeach the older girl's beach-incident testimony	Impeachment witness information was disclosed late or improperly.	Defense failed to timely disclose the impeachment witness and failed to prove material impact.	Harmless error

State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 (Ariz. 2004) (defines Rule 404(b)/(c) applicability and requirements)
State v. Garcia, 200 Ariz. 471 (Ariz. 2001) (limits Garner-like admissibility and emphasizes Rule 403 screening)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2005) (reiterates standard for fundamental error review)
State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2010) (Rule 404(b) balancing and prejudice considerations)
State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580 (Ariz. 1997) (clear-and-convincing requirement for Rule 404(c) admissibility)
State v. Marshall, 197 Ariz. 496 (Ariz. App. 2000) (illustrates harmless-error assessment in Rule 404(c) context)