Arizona Rules of Evidence Rule 403 Interpretation
In State v. Allred, 134 Ariz. 274, 655 P.2d 1326 (1982), the supreme court of Arizona held that when an otherwise admissible prior inconsistent statement is used for substantive purposes, it may be excluded under Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid., if its "probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." 134 Ariz. at 277-78, 655 P.2d at 1329-30.
The court listed five factors to consider in making this assessment:
(1) whether "the witness being impeached denies making the impeaching statement";
(2) whether "the witness presenting the impeaching statement has an interest in the proceeding and there is no other corroboration that the statement was made";
(3) whether "there are other factors affecting the reliability of the impeaching witness, such as age or mental capacity";
(4) whether the statement is intended for substantive rather than impeachment purposes;
(5) whether "the impeachment testimony is the only evidence of guilt." Id. at 277, 655 P.2d at 1329.