DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brock, 416 P.2d 601.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
    We have said that the malice necessary for a second-degree murder conviction is “the intent to kill without legal justification,”
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Morales 630 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Morales 630 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1981
    to cause extreme pain and suffering for one of the enumerated purposes, (citations omitted) It is not enough that defendant intended to cause extreme pain and suffering; there must also be evidence that he did so for revenge, extortion, persuasion or some other untoward propensity, (citations omitted) Furthermore, the death must have been caused by the torture, (citation omitted)”
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Para 583 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Para 583 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    State v. Urias, 8 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Travis 545 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Travis 545 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    in support of his contention.
  • State v. Gonzales 523 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Gonzales 523 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1974
    this court held: “Murder is perpetrated by torture when the assailant intends to cause cruel suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or to satisfy some other untoward propensity.
  • State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
    When such evidence is introduced, it then becomes incumbent upon the state, , , to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: “1.
  • State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
    at 172 , at 605 (1966); at 206 , at 524 (1965), cert.
  • State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
    The concepts of malice and justification are necessarily interrelated, as we have previously defined malice as “the intent to kill without legal justification.” at 172 , at 605 (1966); at 206 , at 524 (1965), cert.
  • Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    wherein the term “revisory” as used in Article 6, section 5(4) of the present constitution is given emphasis by italics at , .
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Chapman v. State 162 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    Carroll v. State, supra.
  • State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
    5 When such evidence is introduced, it then becomes incumbent upon the state, , , to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1.
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
    For cases in which we have held that fundamental error was committed by the failure to give instructions, , ; , ; , .