Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gretzler, 659 P.2d 1.

292 citing documents.

State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
§ 13-703(F)(8) aggravating factor (multiple homicides), a crime against an intended victim not resulting in death (attempted murder or assault, for example) does not trigger any aggravating factor.9 & n.2, & n.2 (1983) (confirming that crimes occurring in the same series of events do not trigger (F)(2), the prior serious offense aggravator).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
-09 , -34 (1981), , 57 n. 2, , 16 n. 2 (1983).
State v. Grell 135 P.3d 696 Ariz. 2006
State v. Grell 135 P.3d 696 Ariz. 2006
3 , and concluded that the manner of killing, in addition to being cruel, was also heinous and depraved.
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
See, ¶ 57, (defining heinous and depraved); ¶ 34, (defining relishing); State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 606, (defining witness elimination); -53, This Court also rejected Anderson’s challenge that the decision in Walton would not save a facially vague F.6 aggravator when a jury, as opposed to a judge, performs the initial fact-finding function because the jury instructions given were “adequate to provide a narrowed construction of th
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
See State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 51, (quoting Clark, 126 Ariz. at 436, 616 P.2d at 896); see also Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 355-56, ¶ 128, 111 P.3d at 397-98.14 ¶85 Here, substantial evidence supports the cruelty prong of the (F)(6) aggravator.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 54
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
- 34 - 206, overruled, in part, n.2, n.2 (1983).
State v. Fell 115 P.3d 594 Ariz. 2005
State v. Fell 115 P.3d 594 Ariz. 2005
and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency”); (“Where none of the statutory aggravating circumstances are found to be present, our statute prohibits the death penalty.”).4 In contrast, nothing in § 13-703 required that any specific fact be
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
we held that fire falls within the statutory definition of “dangerous instrument.” , 198 n. 1, , 1023 n. 1 (1981) , (“The jury also found that these crimes involved the use or exhibition of fire, a dangerous instrument under A.R.S.
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Canez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Canez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
e that the defendant had the “intent to promote the offense of murder and an agreement with another that one will do the actual killing.” P.2d 1 (1983).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
792, 802 (1993); -53 , -13 (1993), , 63-64 n. 7, , 1011-12 n. 7 ¶¶ 28-30 (1998); -16 , -61 (1983); -08 , -33 (1981), , 57 n. 2, , 16 n. 2 (1983).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
792, 802 (1993); -53, -13 (1993), - 64 n.7, -12 n.7 ¶¶28-30 (1998); -16, -61 (1983); -08, -33 (1981), n.2, n.2 (1983).
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
(cruelty alone is sufficient to support a finding of F.6); , (heinousness or depravity alone is sufficient to support a F.6 finding).
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
or depraved.” Citing another capital case, , petitioner claims that the trial court should have considered the following five factors in determining whether his crime was committed in an especially heinous or depraved manner: (1) whether petitioner relished the murder; (2) whether petitioner inflicted gratuitous violence on the victim; (3) w
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
conviction occurs upon determination of guilt.” ( , 57 n. 2, , 16 n. 2 (1983)) (citations omitted)).
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999