Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mincey, 687 P.2d 1180.

114 citing documents.

State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
(“If the defense wishes to challenge the manner in which a mental examination has been conducted, or an expert’s conclusions, this can be done on cross-examination or during the testimony of its own witness.”)
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(defendant’s statements that he “wanted to cut down a shotgun ‘in case he ever get (sic) hassled by pigs’ ” and that he would use the shotgun to “kill a pig if they (sic) get in my way” were admissible to prove premeditation in a homicide case where defendant asserted self-defense); S
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (Mincey I); , (Mincey II); , (Mincey III).
State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
C. Abuse of Discretion As a general rule, “sentencing is the responsibility of the trial judge and, absent an abuse of discretion, the sentence will not be altered.”
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Galvan-Cardenas 799 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Galvan-Cardenas 799 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Garcia 787 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Garcia 787 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Romanosky 782 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1989
State v. Romanosky 782 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1989
State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
Although we recognize this ground for admissibility of prior bad act evidence, -34 , -89 (1984), cert.
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
(informal conversation between judge and media and receipt of ex parte communications concerning sentencing did not require disqualification), cer t. denied, 469 U.S. 1040 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
§ 13-604(N); , (court found that 50 to 60 years’ imprisonment for second-degree murder was not unconstitutional), , cert.