DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valencia, 645 P.2d 239.

63 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
    ¶76 “Where there is a doubt whether the death sentence should be imposed, we will resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence.” see also Marlow, 163 Ariz. at 72; Rockwell, 161 Ariz. at 16.
  • State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry 353 P.3d 847 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry 353 P.3d 847 Ariz. 2015
    resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence.’” ¶ 70, ( ).
  • State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
    in favor of a life sentence.”
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
    When “there is a doubt whether the death sentence should be imposed, we will resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence.”
  • 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. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
    When “there is a doubt whether the death sentence should be imposed, we will resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence.”
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
    Where “there is a doubt whether the death sentence should be imposed, we will resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence.”
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
    see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115 , 102 S.Ct.
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
    we recognized that a defendant’s young age is “a substantial and relevant factor” that should be given “great weight.” 132 Ariz. at 250, 645 P.2d at 241.
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
    (age 16 sufficiently young to establish mitigating factor).
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
    at 16 , 775 P.2d at 1080
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
    present); , (insufficient 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 bra
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
    1985); , , , cases where mitigating circumstances included an unpleasant childhood, see, e.g., State v. Gretzler, supra; State v. Clark, supra; and cases where mitigating circumstances included the defendant’s age, see, , State v. Vickers, supra; , State v. Clark, supra.
  • State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
    (no aggravating factors, so death sentence improper); , (substantial mental impairment from long-standing drug addiction, neurological problems and brain damage); , (youth of defendant); , (substantial mental impairment caused by brain lesion); , (mental illness and epilepsy).
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
    f danger to others or commit murder in cruel, heinous, or depraved manner, and no aggravating circumstances); , , (substantial mental impairment due to drug addiction, neurological problems and brain damage; vulnerability to influence; lack of prior record of violence); State v. Valen *396 cia, , (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 bra
  • State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
    See, , (age twenty); , (Gillies I) (age twenty); , (age sixteen sufficiently young to establish mitigating factor).
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
    at 877 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 12 (mitigating circumstance that defendant was 16 years old and several years less mature than his chronological age); -51 , -42 (1982) (mitigating circumstance that defendant was 16 at the time of the offense warrants reducing sentence of death to life imprisonment).
  • State v. Jordan 697 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Jordan 697 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1985
    we said: Defendant contends that because the judge who tried the case is no longer able to sentence him, there must be a new trial, citing McDaniel, supra.
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985