DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Doss, 568 P.2d 1054.

76 citing documents.

  • State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    “Whether an accused has made an intelligent and knowing waiver of counsel is a question of fact.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    See State v. Doss , , 160, (court's "protecting duty" pertains to "whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused"); cf. Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct.
  • State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
  • State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
    (“There was evidence that the defendant was physically unable to carry on his defense, and at various times the defendant has acknowledged that stress affects his speech and presents a danger of seizure.
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    884 ; , (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 , 58 S.Ct.
  • State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
    “Whether an accused has made an intelligent and knowing waiver of counsel is a question of fact.”
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
    (in setting aside death sentence, giving serious consideration to defendant’s mental illness because of its impact on defendant’s capacity to conform to the law); (finding defendant’s mental condition a “substantial factor in causing the death of the victim” and therefore setting aside sentence of death).
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
    ers, , (setting fire to an inmate in his cell, thus endangering nearby inmates trapped in them cells); , (shooting victims in a crowded bar); , (setting fire to the victim’s house while her children were inside); , (shooting a victim in a crowded gymnasium).
  • State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
    P.2d 785, 800 (1990) (when voices told defendant to kill he could not control what he was doing) (emphasis added); , 608 n. 12, , 892 n. 12 (1993) (“[E]videnee of causation is required before mental impairment can be considered a significant mitigating factor.”)
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    the supreme court adhered to its earlier statement in Peats , observing: “The jury ha[s] an obligation of finding the defendant guilty, not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity---- What happens] after their verdict [is] not their concern.”
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    A “heat of passion must be such a passion as would naturally be aroused in the mind of an ordinarily reasonable person under the same facts and circumstances.” , , (iquoting People v. Danielly, 33 Cal.2d 362 , , cert.
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
    See, , Jimenez, 165 Ariz. at 459-60 , 799 P.2d at 800-01 ; -16 , -80 (1989); Mauro, 159 Ariz. at 207-08 , 766 P.2d at 80-81 ; Brookover, 124 Ariz. at 42 , 601 P.2d at 1326
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
    the brain); , (defendant ingested large quantities of drugs and alcohol up to forty-five minutes before the murder); , (defendant had been taking prescription drugs since age seven); , (defendant suffered from a brain lesion); , (court found defendant’s mental illness was a substantial factor in causing the murder).
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
    “Mental impairments have far greater mitigating effect because they may evidence an inability of the defendant to control his conduct.” Walton, 159 Ariz. at 588 , 769 P.2d at 1034
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    Although we agree with defendant that it is not incongruous that a mental disorder that causes a murder can also require leniency, see, , (holding that leniency is required when defendant’s neurological lesion was “a major and contributing cause of his conduct”); , (holding that leniency is appropriate when defendant’s mental condition was “a substantial factor” in causing the murder), we find no evidence in the record that by making this statement the trial court improperly discounted the mitig
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
    Brookover, 124 Ariz. at 42 , 601 P.2d at 1326
  • State v. Mott 784 P.2d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Mott 784 P.2d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
    See Brookover, 124 Ariz. at 42 , 601 P.2d at 1326
  • State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985