Opinion ID: 2606343
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Drug dealing

Text: Defendant concedes that his drug involvement with the victim was relevant to motive. The state presented evidence that he believed Frankie was stealing his customers, had once used some drugs that were supposed to be sold, and owed him $175. Defendant argues, however, that the extensive testimony of his illegal dealings by no less than 10 witnesses went far beyond what was necessary to establish motive. We agree. That defendant regularly sold drugs to others could only have reinforced in the jurors' minds that he was a bad person someone who had a propensity for committing crimes. He was not on trial for selling or possessing narcotics. It was therefore incumbent on the trial court, under Rule 403, to limit the evidence to its probative essence (motive) by excluding irrelevant or inflammatory detail. See Salazar, 181 Ariz. at 92, 887 P.2d at 622. No such attempt was made here. Moreover, we cannot agree with the state that the testimony from Holt, Sold, and Nelson regarding defendant's threats to strike back at those who ripped him off in drug deals was unavoidable. On the contrary, the evidence should have been excluded because the only possible basis for its admission was to show that defendant acted in conformity with a violent, vengeful character.