Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McDaniel, 665 P.2d 70.

170 citing documents.

State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
(evidence admitted without objection becomes competent evidence for all purposes).
State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
State v. Woodall 744 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Woodall 744 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
While counsel is given wide latitude in closing argument to comment on the evidence and to argue all reasonable inferences, , prosecutorial comments on a defendant’s post-arrest silence have been held to be fundamental error.
State v. Santanna 735 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1987
State v. Santanna 735 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1987
State v. Lee 728 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Lee 728 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
(defendant did not create grave risk of 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); Stat
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982)
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
See, , (when defendant is being sentenced for first degree murder, sentencer must consider as mitigating circumstances any aspect of defendant’s character).
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. McCall, supra; , , cert.
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1985
-95 , -77 (1983); -91 , -23 (1983).
State v. Bishop 698 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bishop 698 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1985
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Oppenheimer, supra.
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hamilton 688 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hamilton 688 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Emery 688 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1984
State v. Emery 688 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1984
the defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death based on his participation in a group effort that resulted in the death of a man.
State v. James 685 P.2d 1293 Ariz. 1984
State v. James 685 P.2d 1293 Ariz. 1984
we said: In order to comply with Enmund , therefore, we believe that in future cases where the jury might have found the defendant guilty of first degree murder based on a felony-murder theory, the trial judge must determine beyond a reasonable doubt prior to imposing a sentence of death
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
State v. Vickers 675 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984
State v. Vickers 675 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984