The 2012 amendments to the Arizona Rules of Evidence make three different kinds of changes: (1) the Arizona rules have generally been restyled so that they correspond to the Federal Rules of Evidence as restyled. These “restyling” changes are not meant to change the admissibility of evidence; (2) in several instances, the Arizona rules have also been amended to “conform” to the federal rules, and these changes may alter the way in which evidence is admitted (see, e.g., Rule 702); and (3) in some instances, the Arizona rules either retain language that is distinct from the federal rules (see, e.g., Rule 404), or deliberately depart from the language of the federal rules (see, e.g., Rule 412).

The Court has generally adopted the federal rules as restyled, with the following exceptions: Rule 103(d) (Fundamental Error); Rule 302; Rule 404 (Character and Other Acts Evidence); Rule 408(a)(2) (Criminal Use Exception); Rule 611(b) (Scope of Cross-Examination); Rule 706(c) (Compensation for Expert Testimony); Rule 801(d)(1)(A) (Prior Inconsistent Statements as Non-Hearsay); Rule 803(25) (Former testimony (non-criminal action or proceeding)); and Rule 804(b)(1) (Former Testimony in a Criminal Case). The restyling is intended to make the rules more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules and with the restyled Federal Rules. Restyling changes are intended to be stylistic only, and not intended to change any ruling on the admissibility of evidence.

The Court has adopted conforming changes to Rule 103 (Rulings on Evidence); Rule 201 (Judicial Notice); Rule 301 (Presumptions); Rule 407 (Subsequent Remedial Measures); Rule 410 (Plea Discussions); Rules 412-415; Rule 606 (Juror's Competency as a Witness); Rule 608 (Character Evidence); Rule 609 (Impeachment by Criminal Conviction); Rule 611 (Mode of Presenting Evidence); Rule 615 (Excluding Witnesses); Rule 701 (Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses); Rule 702 (Testimony by Expert Witnesses); Rule 704(b) (Opinion on an Ultimate Issue--Exception); Rule 706 (Court Appointed Experts); Rule 801(d)(2) (Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay); Rule 803(6)(A), (6)(D) and (24) (Hearsay Exceptions Regardless of Unavailability); Rule 804 (b)(1), (b)(3) and (b)(7) (Hearsay Exceptions When Declarant Unavailable); and Rule 807 (Residual Exception).

Conforming changes that are not merely restyling, as well as deliberate departures from the language of the federal rules, are noted at the outset of the comment to the corresponding Arizona rule.

Where the language of an Arizona rule parallels that of a federal rule, federal court decisions interpreting the federal rule are persuasive but not binding with respect to interpreting the Arizona rule.