Opinion ID: 867374
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of the jailhouse telephone conversations.

Text: ¶ 37 Garza argues that one of the taped phone conversations with Laurel Thompson was improper character evidence. We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 129 ¶ 42, 140 P.3d 899, 912, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 506, 166 L.Ed.2d 377 (2006). ¶ 38 In the conversation, Thompson asked Garza what he did to get arrested. Garza replied, Well, remember what you wanted me to do when that one guy beat you up? . . . Well, I did it to somebody else. Garza alleges that this statement was irrelevant and improperly used to show that he had a propensity for violence. These arguments fail. ¶ 39 The statement is relevant because it is probative of Garza's consciousness of guilt. The statement's probative value is not substantially outweighed by any prejudice that might have resulted from Garza's suggestion that Thompson had previously asked him to engage in similar conduct in the past. By its own terms, the statement implies that no previous assault occurred; Garza merely said that Thompson had once suggested some course of action. ¶ 40 Nor was the statement offered to show Garza's bad character or propensity for violence. The superior court instructed the jury that [e]vidence of other acts of the defendant could be considered only as it relates to the defendant's intent, plan, knowledge, or identity. See Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b) (permitting use of prior acts evidence for such purposes). ¶ 41 Garza also argues that the statement should have been excluded because its trustworthiness was not independently corroborated. The statement, however, was a party admission under Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A). Party admissions require no external indicia of reliability. See State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 248 ¶ 55, 25 P.3d 717, 736 (2001). [9]