Cited by

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

292 citing documents.

State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
57 n. 2, , 16 n. 2, cert.
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
57 n. 2, , 16 n. 2, cert.
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
The state rebuts defendant’s claim by arguing that murdering someone to eliminate that person as a , because it is a form of gratuitous violence.
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
c. Especially Heinous and Depraved [21] The trial court’s special verdict meticulously detailed how it arrived at its finding that the murder was especially heinous and depraved: , the court noted that prior cases construing these terms [heinous and depraved] gave rise to five specific factors that lead to a finding that either or both terms apply: (1) the apparent relishing of the murder by the killer; (2) the infliction of gratuitous violence on the victim; (3) the mutilat
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
2 In determining whether a crime is especially heinous or depraved, 3 we examine “the mental state and attitude of the perpetrator as reflected in his words and actions.” , cert.
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
268 , 126 L.Ed.2d 219 (1993); 57 , 16 (1983), cert.
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
-55 , -14 (1983) (discretion given trial court does not make death penalty capricious), cert.
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
Defendant argues that the trial court’s -52 , -11, cert.
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
(“Cruelty has been specifically defined to involve the infliction of pain on the victim[]____ [O]ur concept of cruelty involves not only physical pain, but also ‘mental * * * distress visited upon the victim[ ].’ ”) (citation omitted)
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992