Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blazak, 643 P.2d 694.

76 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
–03, –99 (1982) (reviewing entire record, including evidence presented in post-conviction review, to decide propriety of death sentence).
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
See Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361 (1957); ( P.2d 475 (1980)).
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(defendant’s due process right to notice not violated by first-degree murder indictment that omitted reference to death penalty statute).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
As we have repeatedly held, the death penalty should not be imposed in every capital murder case but, rather, it should be reserved for cases in which either the manner of the commission of the offense or the background of the defendant places the crime “above the norm of first-degree murders.” , 163 ¶ 169, , 1033 ¶ 169 (2000) ( , ); -69 , -28 (1983) (“either the circumstances of the killing are so shocking ...
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979) (gratuitous finding not supported by evidence showing the defendant shot the victim four times in the back); -05 , -01 , cert.
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
We pointed out in Gretzler that Lujan, 124 Ariz. at 373 , 604 P.2d at 637 , , , cert.
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
2909, 2931 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Stokley, *73 182 Ariz. at 516, 898 P.2d at 465
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
2909, 2935-36 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); , , cert.
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
See Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52-53 , 659 P.2d at 11-12 , , (unconscious victim was helpless but murder not heinous or depraved), , (unnecessary killing of robbery victim and bystander not heinous or depraved).
State v. Burkett 876 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Burkett 876 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
y, and the emotional factors.”); , (“It is presumed that a trial judge, aware of the rules of evidence, will not consider inadmissible evidence in making his ruling.”); (7) Arizona’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it is applied in a manner that discriminates against poor, young, and male defendants, , (similar assertion rejected); (8) Arizona’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it is imposed arbitrarily and irrationally in Arizona, see Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
at 603 , 691 P.2d at 694 ( , , cert.
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
“The death penalty is reserved for those cases where the manner in which the crime was committed raises it *143 above the norm of first degree murders, or the background of the defendant places [him] above the norm of first degree murderers.” , cert.
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
Broadhead v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 725 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Broadhead v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 725 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
In the instant case, “[t]he alleged misconduct of the county attorney and the extent of that alleged misconduct is better shown at a proper post-conviction hearing, at which time evidence may be taken to show that truth or falsity of defendant’s allegations.” , , cert.
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
but see, Smith v. District of Columbia, 128 U.S. App.D.C.
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985