State v. Hanley ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
    v.
    RAYMOND HAROLD HANLEY, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 17-0737
    FILED 12-6-2018
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2016-002298-001
    The Honorable Alfred M. Fenzel, Judge, (Retired)
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Terry M. Crist, III
    Counsel for Appellee
    Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
    By Lawrence S. Matthew
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
    which Acting Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Randall M.
    Howe joined.
    T H U M M A, Chief Judge:
    ¶1           Defendant Raymond Hanley appeals from his convictions
    and sentences for first degree murder, a Class 1 dangerous felony, and
    kidnapping, a Class 2 dangerous felony. Hanley argues the superior court
    erred in admitting evidence of his other acts pursuant to Arizona Rules of
    Evidence 404(b) and (c). Because Hanley has shown no reversible error, his
    convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            Responding to an apartment fire in October 1993, the Mesa
    Fire Department found inside one unit the body of D.S., who had suffered
    multiple gunshot wounds. D.S. was wearing only a t-shirt, and zip ties
    bound her wrists and ankles. Her legs were also bound just below the knee
    and a cord connected the wrist and ankle bindings. Although the murder
    went unsolved at the time, years later, DNA evidence taken from the scene
    matched Hanley. As relevant here, in 2016, a grand jury indicted Hanley for
    first degree murder and kidnapping.1
    ¶3            Hanley claimed someone else committed the offenses and
    agreed “that [the] identity [of the perpetrator] was at issue in this trial.”
    Before trial, the State moved to admit evidence of (1) Hanley’s prior
    conviction for a February 1994 sexual assault of C.S., including his use of
    restraints, and (2) Hanley’s use of restraints during sexual conduct with
    B.H., his wife at the time of the murder. The State sought admission of the
    1 The superior court granted Hanley’s motion to remand to the grand jury,
    resulting in a subsequent indictment alleging first degree murder
    (including sexual assault as a predicate offense), kidnapping, burglary and
    arson of an occupied structure. Hanley was convicted of all four charges
    but does not challenge here his convictions or sentences for burglary and
    arson of an occupied structure.
    2
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    evidence under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show “modus
    operandi,” “pattern and characteristics” that are “so unusual and
    distinctive as to be like a signature,” State v. Prion, 
    203 Ariz. 157
    , 163 ¶ 38
    (2002) (citation omitted), and under Rule 404(c) to “show that the defendant
    had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit”
    sexual assault, a predicate for the felony murder charge. See Ariz. R. Evid.
    404(b) & (c) (2018).2
    ¶4             At a pretrial evidentiary hearing, psychologist Dr. Tina Garby
    testified about the similarities and differences between the other acts and
    the murder. Dr. Garby testified that “the behaviors of bondage appear[ed]
    to be similar enough that the same person could have done them,” and that
    the person performing the acts of bondage was “likely to be somebody who
    has an interest in sexual sadism.” Mesa Police Department Detective Brown
    also testified about her discussions with B.H. and Hanley on the topic.
    ¶5             After the evidentiary hearing, in an eight-page minute entry,
    the superior court granted the State’s motion. The court found that the State
    had proven the conduct by clear and convincing evidence; that the conduct
    “was sufficiently unique as to be like a signature in its nature,” see Ariz. R.
    Evid. 404(b), and that “the commission of these acts provide[d] a reasonable
    basis to infer that [Hanley] had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant
    sexual propensity to commit the crimes charged,” see Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c).
    The court found that the probative value of the evidence “far outweighs the
    risk of prejudice.”
    ¶6             At trial, B.H., C.S. and Detective Brown testified about the
    other acts. The jury also heard excerpts of recorded interviews of Hanley
    that briefly addressed the other acts.
    ¶7            After a 12-day trial, the jury found Hanley guilty of first
    degree murder and kidnapping and then found the State had proven
    aggravating circumstances. The court imposed a sentence of life in prison
    with possibility of release after 25 years for the murder conviction and a
    concurrent term of 10.5 years in prison for kidnapping. This court has
    jurisdiction over Hanley’s timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of
    the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-
    120.21(A)(1) and 13-4033(A)(1).
    2Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited
    refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
    3
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    I.         Admission Of Other Act Evidence Is Reviewed For An Abuse Of
    Discretion, Viewing The Evidence In The Light Most Favorable To
    The Proponent.
    ¶8             On appeal, this court reviews a superior court’s “decision to
    admit evidence of other acts for an abuse of discretion,” State v. Hausner, 
    230 Ariz. 60
    , 78 ¶ 68 (2012), recognizing an admissibility “ruling will not be
    disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion,” State v. Kiper, 
    181 Ariz. 62
    , 65 (App. 1994). The State asks this court to “look at the evidence in the
    light most favorable to the proponent, maximizing its probative value and
    minimizing its prejudicial effect.” Kiper, 
    181 Ariz. at 66
    . Hanley responds
    that, for other acts evidence, “the rules have a different thrust, and the
    suppositional balance no longer tilts toward admission.” State v. Salazar, 
    181 Ariz. 87
    , 91 (App. 1994). This, Hanley suggests, requires a different rule for
    appellate review of decisions admitting other act evidence.
    ¶9            Contrary to Hanley’s suggestion, Salazar’s direction to
    superior courts, 181 Ariz. at 91, does not change or conflict with Kiper’s
    direction to appellate courts, 181 Ariz. at 66. The two decisions focus on
    different issues. Salazar focuses on how the superior court should resolve
    admissibility, while Kiper focuses on how this court, on appeal, should
    review the superior court’s admission of other act evidence. Because Kiper
    provides the relevant analysis here, this court views the evidence “in the
    light most favorable to the proponent, maximizing its probative value and
    minimizing its prejudicial effect.” Kiper, 181 Ariz. at 66.
    II.   The Court Properly Admitted Evidence Of The February 1994
    Sexual Assault Under Rules 404(B) And (C), And Evidence Of
    Marital Acts Between Hanley And B.H. Under Rule 404(C).
    ¶10           In general, “[e]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of
    character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity
    therewith on a particular occasion.” Ariz. R. Evid. 404(a); accord Ariz. R.
    Evid. 404(b). Hanley claims the superior court erred in applying two
    exceptions to this general rule by admitting other act evidence (1) under
    Rule 404(b), for the limited purpose of showing Hanley’s modus operandi,
    and (2) under 404(c), to show that Hanley “had a character trait giving rise
    to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the offense charged.” Although
    the relevance inquiry is similar, because the “proper consideration and use
    by the jury of” other acts evidence “differs significantly depending upon”
    whether it is admitted under Rule 404(b) or 404(c), State v. Scott, 
    243 Ariz. 183
    , 188 n.3 (App. 2017), this court addresses 404(b) and 404(c) in turn.
    4
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    A.     The Other Acts Evidence Was Relevant.
    ¶11            “Evidence is relevant if . . . it has any tendency to make a fact
    more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and . . . the
    fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Ariz. R. Evid. 401. This
    “standard of relevance is not particularly high.” State v. Rose, 
    231 Ariz. 500
    ,
    512 ¶ 52 (2013) (citation omitted). Hanley’s use of bondage in the sexual
    assault and with his wife during sexual conduct demonstrated his
    preference for the use of restraints in such encounters; D.S. was similarly
    restrained at the time of death and was naked, other than wearing a shirt,
    suggestive of a sexual encounter. Accordingly, the evidence was relevant.
    See Ariz. R. Evid. 401; accord State v. Goudeau, 
    239 Ariz. 421
    , 446 ¶ 66 (2016)
    (“[B]ecause identity was the only disputed issue at trial, the court did not
    err by finding the other-act evidence relevant.”).3
    B.     The Superior Court Properly Admitted The Other Acts
    Evidence Under Rule 404(C).
    ¶12            In an evidentiary rule unique to Arizona, “[i]n a criminal case
    in which a defendant is charged with having committed a sexual offense,
    . . . evidence of other . . . acts may be admitted by the court if relevant to
    show that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant
    sexual propensity to commit the offense charged.” Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c).4 As
    applicable here, three things are required for the proper admission of other
    act evidence under Rule 404(c):
    First, the trial court must determine that clear
    and convincing evidence supports a finding
    that the defendant committed the other act.
    Second, the court must find that the commission
    of the other act provides a reasonable basis to
    infer that the defendant had a character trait
    giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to
    3 Hanley’s argument to the contrary is based on one case addressing
    different issues. See State v. Ramirez Enriquez, 
    153 Ariz. 431
    , 432 (App. 1987)
    (reversing sale of marijuana conviction; criticizing admission of evidence,
    to “complete[] the story, ” of other times when defendant sold marijuana
    where a limiting instruction was “incomprehensible”).
    4Federal Rule of Evidence 413 (“Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases”)
    addresses a similar topic but does so in a different manner.
    5
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    commit the charged sexual offense. Third, the
    court must find that the evidentiary value of
    proof of the other act is not substantially
    outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
    confusion of the issues, or other factors
    mentioned in Rule 403 [as well as eight factors
    listed in Rule 404(c), “among others”].
    State v. Aguilar, 
    209 Ariz. 40
    , 49 ¶ 30 (2004) (emphasis added; citations
    omitted).5 Applying these 404(c) standards, Hanley has shown no error in
    the superior court’s admission of the other acts evidence in this case.
    1.     Hanley Has Not Shown That The Superior Court
    Abused Its Discretion In Concluding The Other Acts
    Provided A Reasonable Basis To Infer That He Had
    A Character Trait Giving Rise To An Aberrant Sexual
    Propensity To Commit Sexual Assault.
    a.     Hanley’s February 1994 Sexual Assault Of C.S.
    ¶13           Hanley concedes that clear and convincing evidence showed
    that he was convicted of sexually assaulting C.S. in February 1994. Hanley
    asserts, however, that there were “virtually no similarities” to support the
    finding that his sexual assault of C.S. “provides a reasonable basis to infer
    that [he] had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity
    to” sexually assault D.S. Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c)(1)(B).
    ¶14           It is undisputed that Rule 404(c) “does not contemplate any
    bright line test of remoteness or similarity, which are solely factors to be
    considered.” Rule 404 cmt. to 1997 amendment. Indeed, Rule 404(b)
    authorizes the admission of other acts evidence “providing there is a
    ‘reasonable’ basis, by way of expert testimony or otherwise, . . . [to show]
    that the commission of the other act permits an inference that defendant
    had an aberrant sexual propensity that makes it more probable that he or
    she committed the sexual offense charged.” Rule 404 cmt. to 1997
    amendment; see also State v. Benson, 
    232 Ariz. 452
    , 459 ¶ 14 (2013) (noting
    “attacks did not have to precisely align” to be admissible). Hanley argues,
    5Although the court also must “make specific findings with respect to each
    of the” Rule’s prerequisites for admission and “instruct the jury as to the
    proper use of such evidence,” see Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c)(1) & (2), Hanley does
    not challenge those requirements on appeal, and the record presented
    shows the court properly undertook those obligations.
    6
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    however, there were only “an extremely small number of generic
    similarities,” meaning the superior court erred in finding the evidence
    admissible under Rule 404(c)(1)(B).
    ¶15            Given the closeness in time of the February 1994 sexual
    assault and the October 1993 murder, the similarities between the use of
    restraints in each, and Dr. Garby’s testimony, the superior court properly
    found the requisite basis to support propensity. Testimony at the
    evidentiary hearing revealed that both victims were adult women;
    restraints bound each at the wrists, ankles, and between the ankle and knee;
    both women appeared to have been undressed by someone else; and
    violence was used or threatened on both occasions. Dr. Garby concluded
    that “if the same individual engaged in these behaviors, then this person is
    likely to be somebody who has an interest in sexual sadism.” The court
    found Dr. Garby’s testimony “logical, well-reasoned and persuasive.”
    ¶16            Dr. Garby likewise discussed and explained many of the
    differences Hanley highlights on appeal, concluding “that, if somebody
    was engaging in those behaviors and did these things, that they still may
    be very likely to have a sexual sadistic interest.” The superior court weighed
    the differences and found them to be “less consequential.” On this record,
    Hanley has shown no abuse of discretion in the court’s admission of the
    sexual assault evidence under Rule 404(c). See, e.g., State v. Lehr, 
    227 Ariz. 140
    , 147 ¶ 21 (2011) (noting “[a]cts need not be perfectly similar in order for
    evidence of them to be admitted under Rule 404.”); State v. Dixon, 
    226 Ariz. 545
    , 550 ¶ 15 (2011) (noting similarities of victims; that “[i]n each case, a
    knife was used, the victim was restrained, and homicide was either
    threatened or occurred” and expert testimony that the defendant “had an
    aberrant propensity to commit sexual assault,” and concluding “the trial
    court’s propensity determination was appropriate”); Benson, 232 Ariz. at
    458-59 ¶ 14 (noting other acts that “bore several similarities” to the charged
    offense “provided a reasonable basis for the court to infer that [defendant’s]
    aberrant sexual propensities in each attack were probative on the charges
    involving all victims”).
    b.     Hanley’s Use Of Restraints On B.H. At The
    Time Of The Murder.
    ¶17            Hanley has likewise failed to show the superior court abused
    its discretion in admitting evidence of bondage within his marriage under
    Rule 404(c). Although Hanley argues his acts with B.H. were consensual,
    testimony at the evidentiary hearing included information to the contrary.
    Regardless, B.H. testified (and Hanley admitted in interviews) that the
    7
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    couple engaged in bondage. See State v. Vega, 
    228 Ariz. 24
    , 29 ¶ 19 & n.4
    (App. 2011) (holding “victim’s in-person testimony satisfied the clear-and-
    convincing requirement of Rule 404(c)(1)(A)). Moreover, other acts need not
    be criminal to be admissible. See Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c) (providing “evidence
    of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted”).
    ¶18           To be sure, Hanley’s conduct with B.H. was different than the
    sexual assault and the charges involving D.S., meaning the admissibility of
    his conduct with B.H. was a closer call. That said, on the record presented,
    the superior court did not abuse its discretion. Both women’s hands and
    ankles were bound; both were either naked or nearly so; and the events
    occurred during the same time period. Moreover, the court credited Dr.
    Garby’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing that emphasized the common
    presence of psychological—not just physical—components of “sexual
    sadists;” B.H. repeatedly characterized Hanley as “psychologically hurtful
    and controlling” and stated bondage was something she “wasn’t wanting
    to do.”
    ¶19           The court found the evidence presented established a
    “reasonable basis to infer that [Hanley] has an aberrant sexual propensity
    to commit the crimes charged which involved a sadistic sexual interest in
    bondage and threats.” It noted Hanley and B.H. engaged in the acts “at
    [Hanley’s] insistence, for his pleasure and it involved simulated if not real
    pain.” Taken together, this evidence supports the superior court’s finding.
    2.     Hanley Has Shown No Abuse Of Discretion In
    Finding The Evidentiary Value Of Proof Of The
    Other Acts Was Not Substantially Outweighed By A
    Danger Of Impermissible Considerations.
    ¶20            To be admissible under Rule 404(c), the evidentiary value of
    other act evidence must not be substantially outweighed by a danger of the
    factors listed in Rule 403 or of additional factors, including “(i) remoteness
    of the other act; (ii) similarity or dissimilarity of the other act; (iii) the
    strength of the evidence that defendant committed the other act; (iv)
    frequency of the other acts; (v) surrounding circumstances; (vi) relevant
    intervening events; (vii) other similarities or differences; [and] (viii) other
    relevant factors.” Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c)(1)(C). As is true in reviewing a
    challenge under Rule 403, the superior court’s conclusion under Rule
    404(c)(1)(C) is given substantial deference. See State v. Gibson, 
    202 Ariz. 321
    ¶ 17 (2002).
    8
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    ¶21            The superior court’s ruling considered all eight factors listed
    in Rule 404(c)(1)(C) and found that clear and convincing evidence of the
    prior acts’ occurrence, as well as the closeness in time and similarity of the
    acts, favored admission. The court stated that “[t]he probative value far
    outweighs the risk of prejudice.” On this record, Hanley has shown no
    abuse of discretion.
    ¶22            Hanley also argues “there can be no question that jurors were
    influenced by the revulsion they felt toward [him].”6 The other acts
    evidence admitted at trial, however, was comparatively brief and neutral.
    B.H.’s direct trial testimony on the point is limited to a few transcript pages.
    She was then cross-examined about apparent inconsistencies in her
    statements on the topic, with no corresponding redirect. C.S.’s trial
    testimony provided more detail, describing Hanley’s actions during his
    sexual assault, but in relevant part, was limited to approximately ten
    transcript pages, with no cross-examination on the point. On this record,
    Hanley has shown no error by the superior court in applying Rule
    404(c)(1)(C).
    C.     Evidence Of The February 1994 Sexual Assault of C.S. Was
    Admissible To Show Hanley’s Modus Operandi Under
    Rule 404(B); Evidence Of Hanley’s Use Of Restraints On
    B.H. At The Time Of The Murder Was Not.
    ¶23            Recognizing the evidentiary record supported the superior
    court’s finding that the other acts were proved by clear and convincing
    evidence, to be admissible under Rule 404(b), the court was required to “(1)
    find that the act is offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); (2) find
    that the prior act is relevant to prove that purpose; [and] (3) find that any
    probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.” State
    v. Hargrave, 
    225 Ariz. 1
    , 8 ¶ 10 (2010) (citation omitted).7
    6 Although the typical focus is on the pre-trial evidentiary hearing to
    determine whether the superior court properly made an advance
    admissibility determination, this discussion of how the evidence came in at
    trial addresses Hanley’s reference to the impact on the jury of this evidence.
    7 Although the court also must “give upon request an appropriate limiting
    instruction,” Hargrave, 225 Ariz. at 8 ¶ 10 (quoting State v. Anthony, 
    218 Ariz. 439
    , 444 ¶ 33 (2008)), Hanley does not challenge the appropriate Rule 404(b)
    limiting instruction given by the superior court in this case.
    9
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    ¶24           Evidence “is not admissible to prove the character of a person
    in order to show action in conformity therewith,” but may be admitted for
    “other purposes.” Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b). One such proper “other purpose”
    is to prove the identity, or modus operandi, of the defendant. See State v.
    Roscoe (Roscoe II), 
    184 Ariz. 484
    , 491 n.2 (1996) (“Identity and modus
    operandi are obviously closely related, if not identical, since an unrelated
    act with a significantly similar modus operandi may identify the defendant
    as the person who committed the crime charged.”).
    The identity exception to Rule 404(b) applies if
    identity is in issue, “and if the behavior of the
    accused both on the occasion charged and on
    some other occasion is sufficiently distinctive,
    then proof that the accused was involved on the
    other occasion tends to prove his involvement
    in the crime charged.“
    State v. Stuard, 
    176 Ariz. 589
    , 597 (1993) (quoting Morris K. Udall, Arizona
    Practice: Law of Evidence § 84, at 183-84 (3d ed. 1991)). “The similarity
    requirement is usually more stringent where evidence of [another] . . . act
    is used to prove identity than where such evidence is offered to prove
    emotional propensity or state of mind.” State v. Roscoe (Roscoe I), 
    145 Ariz. 212
    , 216 (1984). “Although the details need not be identical, there must be
    similarities between important aspects where one would normally expect
    to find difference.” State v. Tankersley, 
    191 Ariz. 359
    , 369 (1998) abrogated on
    other grounds by State v. Machado, 
    226 Ariz. 281
    , 284 ¶ 17 (2011). “Where an
    overwhelming number of significant similarities exist, the evidence of the
    prior act may be admitted.” Roscoe I, 
    145 Ariz. at 216
    . Rather than
    performing a “mechanical count of the similarities,” the superior court is
    directed to ask whether the acts are “so similar, unusual, and distinctive”
    that it “could reasonably find that they bear the same signature.” State v.
    Bible, 
    175 Ariz. 549
    , 576 (1993). “If so, the evidence may be admissible and
    any dissimilarities go to its weight.” Id.
    1.     Hanley’s February 1994 Sexual Assault of C.S.
    ¶25           Hanley has not shown the superior court abused its direction
    in admitting evidence of the sexual assault under Rule 404(b). Based on the
    similarities detailed above, that court could find the acts against C.S. and
    D.S. sufficiently “similar, unusual, and distinctive” so as to “find that they
    bear the same signature.” Bible, 
    175 Ariz. at 576
    .
    10
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    ¶26           The superior court found the use of “handcuffs, ties and/or
    restraints of both the legs and arms,” as well as Hanley’s “holding the
    women in a submissive and entirely vulnerable state” sufficiently similar
    under Rule 404(b). Additional similarities were offered at the evidentiary
    hearing, including restraints in both circumstances between the victims’
    ankles and knees, a factor Dr. Garby emphasized as distinctive; evidence
    both victims had been undressed by another person; and violence used or
    threatened against each victim. See State v. Perez, 
    141 Ariz. 459
    , 464 (1984)
    (“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally
    correct for any reason.”). Although there were differences, the superior
    court considered those differences and deemed them “less consequential”
    than the similarities. See also Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 451 ¶ 100 (noting such
    differences go to the weight to be given the evidence). Similarly, and for
    reasons like those above in discussing Rule 404(c)(1)(C), Hanley has shown
    no abuse of discretion in the court’s concluding that Rule 403 did not
    preclude admissibility of evidence of the sexual assault for the limited
    purpose of showing modus operandi.
    2.     Hanley’s Use Of Restraints On B.H. At The Time Of
    The Murder.
    ¶27            Hanley argues the superior court erred in admitting, under
    Rule 404(b), evidence of his use of restraints on B.H. Recognizing the
    requirement that the other acts had to be “sufficiently unique as to be like a
    signature in nature,” the similarities identified by the superior court were
    that the acts “involved the use [of] handcuffs, ties and/or restraints of both
    the legs and arms” that held B.H. in a “submissive and entirely vulnerable
    state.” Unlike Hanley’s sexual assault of C.S., however, no additional,
    unique similarities were noted in the ruling or on the record.
    ¶28            Although “absolute identity in every detail” is not required
    under Rule 404(b), as directed by prior cases, the similarities here are not
    sufficiently significant, “unusual, and distinctive” to support admission to
    show modus operandi. See, e.g., State v. Cuen, 
    153 Ariz. 382
    , 384 (App. 1987)
    (“[I]f we were to hold that the evidence of prior sexual misconduct in this
    case satisfies the criteria for admissibility under the . . . modus operandi
    exception, there would be nothing left of” the general prohibition in Rule
    404(b)); Prion, 
    203 Ariz. at
    164 ¶¶ 40-41 (2002) (finding 1992 murder and
    kidnapping/aggravated assault two years later insufficiently similar where
    “each involved a female victim, and a knife or knives were utilized by the
    perpetrator(s) at some point during commission of the crimes”); State v.
    Jackson, 
    124 Ariz. 202
    , 204-05 (1979) (finding 1976 incident insufficiently
    similar to three 1974 crimes where all four “occurred in the daytime, in
    11
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    apartment complexes located in the same general area of Tucson” and
    where “the perpetrator entered a woman’s unlocked apartment shortly
    after he had the opportunity to observe the woman enter or leave the
    apartment alone”); State v. Hughes, 
    189 Ariz. 62
    , 68-69 (1997) (finding
    strangulation murder and Molotov cocktail arson insufficiently similar
    where there were “only two likenesses—both victims were women who
    had angered defendant and [the same individual] may have been paid to
    commit the crimes”); cf. State v. Harding, 
    137 Ariz. 278
    , 290 (1983) (finding
    no abuse of discretion in admission of other act evidence for modus
    operandi where “the similarities of choice of victims (salesmen motel
    guests), peculiar method of eliminating resistance (hog-tying with clothing
    and gagging using socks), placement of victims (in bathroom with heads on
    pillows), items stolen (briefcases and clothing) and manner of departing the
    crime scene (via the victim's automobile) are so striking that” evidence of
    the other act “tends to prove the identity of the killer of the instant
    victims”).
    ¶29          Because this evidence of Hanley’s use of restraints on B.H. at
    the time of the murder failed to meet the “more stringent” similarity
    requirement for evidence to be admitted under Rule 404(b) for modus
    operandi purposes, its admission was error.
    III.   The Erroneous Admission Of Evidence Of Hanley’s Use Of
    Restraints On B.H. Under Rule 404(B) Was Harmless.
    ¶30           The State argues that any error in admitting other act
    evidence was harmless, while Hanley argues the “error cannot be deemed
    harmless,” citing State v. Anthony, 
    218 Ariz. 439
     (2008). Error is harmless
    where the State shows, “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not
    contribute to or affect the verdict.” Bible, 
    175 Ariz. at 588
    . In other words,
    error is harmless when there is no “reasonable probability . . . that a verdict
    might have been different had the error not been committed.” State v.
    Williams, 
    133 Ariz. 220
    , 225 (1982) (citation omitted). Here, the State has
    shown harmless error.
    ¶31           Although improperly admitted under Rule 404(b), the court
    properly admitted evidence of Hanley’s use of restraints on B.H. under
    Rule 404(c). Similarly, the jury properly was instructed, as contemplated by
    Rule 404(c), that it could consider that evidence in determining whether
    Hanley “had a character trait that predisposed him to commit the crimes
    charged.” Accordingly, although not admissible under Rule 404(b), the trial
    evidence properly included this same evidence under Rule 404(c), and the
    jury properly considered the evidence under Rule 404(c).
    12
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    ¶32           In addition, the other act evidence involving B.H. was brief
    and primarily resulted from Hanley’s cross-examination of B.H. B.H.
    testified Hanley “liked to tie [her] up . . . maybe once a month or something
    like that.” She testified Hanley “would tie [her] down to the bed so [she]
    couldn’t get away,” restraining on some occasions only her hands and on
    others both her arms and legs. B.H. noted this started “in the last couple
    years” of their relationship, adding she “wasn’t wanting to do it.” Hanley’s
    cross-examination focused on inconsistencies in B.H.’s statements,
    including her admitting to purchasing the handcuffs used and stating
    Hanley was “kind and gentle;” never got angry while using restraints; and
    never bound her to anything she could not pull loose from. This brief
    evidence was not featured during closing arguments by counsel.
    ¶33            Independent of this 404(b) evidence, other trial evidence
    clearly demonstrated Hanley’s guilt. Hanley’s fingerprints were found on
    a gas can found in D.S.’s apartment and used as an accelerant for the fire.
    Hanley’s DNA was found on a cigarette butt found inside D.S.’s apartment
    used to start the fire. Although first denying knowledge of various relevant
    events, Hanley later admitted to knowing D.S. and admitted to arriving at
    her apartment soon after the fire was spotted. He gave multiple inconsistent
    accounts of his involvement with D.S., and his statements about when he
    last spoke with her also changed over time. In addition, he volunteered
    details about the events that only someone involved in the offenses would
    know, including that D.S. had been shot. On this record, there is no
    reasonable probability that the verdicts would have been different had the
    other act evidence involving B.H. been admitted solely under Rule 404(c),
    and not also under Rule 404(b). See State v. Valverde, 
    220 Ariz. 582
    , 585 ¶ 12
    (2009) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante, 
    245 Ariz. 135
    , 140-41 ¶
    16 (2018); State v. Van Adams, 
    194 Ariz. 408
    , 416 ¶ 23 (1999).
    ¶34            Hanley’s reliance on Anthony does not suggest a contrary
    result. In that capital, triple-murder case, “[a] significant portion of the trial
    was dedicated to evidence about the alleged molestation” by Anthony of a
    young step-daughter. Anthony, 218 Ariz. at 444 ¶ 29. Along with substantial
    evidence offered on the point during trial, in closing arguments, the State
    “asked the jury to conclude that Anthony had molested [the girl] and
    murdered her to cover up the molestation. The State returned to this
    argument and the evidence that allegedly supported it nearly a dozen times
    throughout its closing and rebuttal arguments.” Id. at ¶ 31. In reversing, the
    Arizona Supreme Court noted the superior court “erred by applying the
    wrong legal standard to its evaluation of” the other act evidence, id. at 445
    ¶ 34, that the “evidence fell far short of proving either that [the girl] was
    molested or that Anthony had done so,” meaning it was not otherwise
    13
    STATE v. HANLEY
    Decision of the Court
    admissible, id. at 445 ¶ 37, and that the State had not shown the evidence
    against Anthony was adequate to demonstrate harmless error, id. at 446 ¶¶
    41-42. None of these factors are present here.
    ¶35            On this record, for these reasons, it is clear “beyond a
    reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”
    Bible, 
    175 Ariz. at 588
    ; accord Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 585 ¶ 12; Van Adams, 
    194 Ariz. at
    416 ¶ 23. Accordingly, notwithstanding the error in admitting
    evidence of Hanley’s use of restraints on B.H. under Rule 404(b), that error
    was harmless.8
    CONCLUSION
    ¶36          Because Hanley has shown no reversible error, his
    convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    8 For these same reasons, and because there were permissible inferences the
    jury could draw from this evidence under Rule 404(c), the court rejects
    Hanley’s related due process claim. See Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 
    926 F.2d 918
    ,
    920 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Only if there are no permissible inferences the jury may
    draw from the evidence can its admission violate due process.”); cf. Boyde
    v. Brown, 
    404 F.3d 1159
    , 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
    14