Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Watson, 628 P.2d 943.

87 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
4 As to the remaining mitigating factors, I agree that, despite evidence supporting them, (court must review “all the records”), they are entitled to little or no weight, ¶ 82 (2010) (“minor participation” not established in killings when defendant involved in planning and execution of robbery and knew co-defendant prepared to kill, despite not being shoote
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
In carrying out this duty, we have stated that the “question before us is not whether the trial court properly imposed the death penalty, but whether, based upon the record before us, we believe that the death penalty should be imposed.”
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
if the defendant has an independent basis for resentencing, intervening conduct may be considered.
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
Disparity of Co-defendant’s Sentence Although sentences of co-defendants may be considered in mitigation, Cook, 170 Ariz. at 65 , 821 P.2d at 756 ; , where the difference in sentences is a result of appropriate plea bargaining, it may not be considered in mitigation.
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
Although the fact that a capital defendant is a model prisoner has previously been considered a mitigating circumstance, -64 , -47 (1981), a sentencing judge is not *315 required to accept it as mitigating.
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
-64 , -47 (1981) (Watson II) (evidence of rehabilitation should be considered in mitigation).
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
A vital consideration is whether the evidence supports the proposition that the murder in question “stands out from the norm of first degree murders----”
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
He contends that he has evolved into a model prisoner and, , this fact should be considered as mitigation.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
“[W]e must review carefully and with consistency death penalty cases and not engage in a ‘cursory’ or ‘rubber stamp’ type of review.”
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 203 (1984), , , (death sentence set aside; defendant may well have been more culpable than accomplice who received life imprisonment, but murder was not particularly heinous or cruel).
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
Explained State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
“[a] finding merely that the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court was ‘factually supported’ or ‘justified by the evidence’ ” is not the appellate treatment that the death penalty warrants.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
Although a codefendant’s life sentence could be a mitigating factor, State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. *170 60, 64 , we do not find it to be one in this case.
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
Finally, , as evidence that his death sentence is disproportional to the death sentence in other cases.
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
We discussed our role in reviewing death sen *552 tences in State v. Watson (Watson II), , : Unlike appellate review of non-capital crimes, in reviewing the imposition of the death penalty, we must make an independent determination of the imposition of that penalty____ The question before us is not whether the trial court properly imposed the death penalty, but whether, based upon the r
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
nt evidence that defendant intended to kill victim who was beaten and locked in trunk of car); , (substantial mental impairment due to drug addiction, neurological problems, and brain damage; vulnerability to influence; lack of prior record of violence); , (youth of defendant); , (change of character and goals while in prison; youth of defendant; murder occurred as a result of shootout begun by victim); , (substantial mental impairment due to brain lesion).
State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
In addition, we have repeatedly stated that “the death penalty [should be] reserved for those who stand out from the norm of first degree murderers either because of the act committed or because of the defendant’s back *15 ground.”
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
E.g., Graham, , ; , , cert.
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987