State v. Yonkman, 274 P.3d 1225

Yonkman was convicted by a jury of sexual abuse and sexual conduct with a minor involving his stepdaughter, C.
The trial court admitted other-act evidence about two other alleged victims and prior acquittals related to those acts, and admitted prior consistent statements.
Yonkman initially invoked his right to counsel; police conducted a second interview after a police-initiated inquiry linked to a polygraph offer conveyed via a third party.
The second interrogation occurred after Edwards v. Arizona and later Shatzer rules; the court concluded the confession was obtained in violation and should have been suppressed.
Following suppression reversal, the convictions and sentence were reversed and the case remanded for new proceedings.
The court addressed the admissibility of acquitted-conduct evidence under Rule 404(b)/(c), ultimately ruling it admissible but noting issues to be addressed on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the confession obtained in violation of Edwards and Shatzer?	Yonkman argued he invoked counsel; any reinterrogation was police-initiated.	The record showed voluntary statements and initiation by Yonkman after assurances from investigators.	Confession suppressed; Edwards violation established.
Whether other-act evidence of acquitted conduct was admissible under Rule 404(b)/(c)?	Acquitted conduct evidence should be precluded due to Little.	Dowling-based admission is permitted if rules are satisfied and probative value outweighs prejudice.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; acquitted-conduct evidence admissible.
Should evidence of the fact of acquittal be admitted with an acquittal instruction on remand?	Acquittal should be considered and possibly instructed to the jury to avoid confusion.	Not necessary to decide here; the instruction issue is remand-dependent.	Not decided; remand to address acquittal-instruction under applicable standards.
Was the admission of prior consistent statements properly limited?	Error due to improper admission of prior consistent statements.	State concedes error, unlikely to recur on retrial; issue not pursued on appeal.	Not further addressed; likely not recur on retrial.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (right to counsel; cannot reinterrogate after invoking counsel unless initiated by the defendant)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010) (14-day break in custody; need for reinitiation to reinterrogate post-invocation)
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (U.S. 1983) (definitional guidance on what constitutes reinitiation by accused)
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1990) (acquitted-conduct evidence admissible under 404(b) if probative and properly limited)
State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580, 944 P.2d 1194 (Ariz. 1997) (Arizona rule on admissibility of other-act evidence; focus on probative value and prejudice)
State v. Little, 87 Ariz. 295, 350 P.2d 756 (Ariz. 1960) (acquitted-conduct evidence is generally precluded in Arizona per Little)
Kinney v. People, 187 P.3d 548 (Colo. 2008) (acquittal instruction appropriate when prior-trial information risks juror speculation)
State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285, 619 P.2d 1062 (Ariz. App. 1980) (discussion of acquittal evidence and related limitations)