from the Superior Court in Pinal County, No.
S1100CR201702367, The Honorable Jason R. Holmberg, Judge.
Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief
Counsel, By Tanja K. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General,
Tucson, Counsel for Appellee
P. Levitt, Tucson, Counsel for Appellant
Brearcliffe authored the opinion of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Vásquez concurred.
Aaron Michael Rose appeals his convictions after a jury trial
on two counts of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of
fifteen. We affirm.
Rose contends the trial court committed fundamental error by
admitting, under Rule 404(c), Ariz. R. Evid., evidence of his
juvenile delinquency adjudication for child molestation. The
state contends that the evidence was properly admitted. The
sole issue on appeal is whether the court erred because Rule
404(c) does not permit the admission of evidence of other
crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a juvenile as evidence of
a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual
propensity to commit a criminal sexual offense.
Factual and Procedural Background
We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding
the trial courts rulings and jurys verdict. See
State v. Gay, 214 Ariz. 214, ¶¶ 2, 4, 150 P.3d 787,
790 (App. 2007). Rose was indicted on two counts of sexual
conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, a class two
felony and dangerous
crime against children in the first degree. Between December
2015 and August 2017, when Rose was thirty-six to
thirty-eight years old, he engaged in the charged acts with
the son of his then-girlfriend. The boy was between the ages
of three and five at the time of the crimes. At trial, the
state sought to introduce evidence under Rule 404(c) of
Roses prior juvenile delinquency adjudication for child
molestation as evidence of Roses aberrant sexual propensity
to commit the acts charged in this case. In that matter,
Rose, then fourteen, was found to have molested a five- to
six-year-old boy in a similar manner.
Rose opposed the admission of the evidence arguing that
expert witness testimony was necessary to demonstrate that he
had a "continuing emotional propensity" to commit
the crime, that the acts were dissimilar to the current
charged offenses and remote in time, and that their admission
would be unduly prejudicial. The trial court found the 1994
adjudication admissible under Rule 404(c). At the conclusion
of the three-day trial, Rose was convicted on both counts,
and the jury found the aggravating factor that the victim was
age twelve or under at the time of each crime. Rose ...