Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clark, 616 P.2d 888.

179 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
See, (finding murder was especially depraved but not especially heinous); Walton, 159 Ariz. at 587 (finding murder was especially depraved but not especially heinous); (finding murder was especially heinous but not especially depraved); Montoya, 258 Ariz. at 166 ¶ 123 (d
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
Thus, “[a]s long as the photograph has some probative value it is admissible even if inflammatory.”
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A defendant does not have to run from police or the place of the crime for a flight instruction to be justified, -35 (1980); however, because merely leaving the scene of a crime is not evidence of flight, Smith, 113 Ariz. at 300, a flight instruction is proper only if the defendant’s “manner of leaving .
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
(“The statutory expression is in the disjunctive, so either all or one could constitute an aggravating circumstance.”).
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
Willoughby, 181 Ariz. at 549, 892 P.2d at 1338 ( (Gordon, J., concurring) (arguing that (F)(5) should apply only when the defendant is a hired killer)).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
We need not consider either argument, however, because in this case the jurors unanimously found the murder to be cruel, which alone satisfies the F.6 aggravator, , ("The statutory expression is in the disjunctive, so either all or one could constitute an aggravating circumstance.").
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
“Heinousness or depravity” refers to the “mental state and attitude of the perpetrator as reflected in his words and actions.” Sansing, 206 Ariz. at 235, ¶ 6 , 77 P.3d at 33 ( , ).
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
discussions with co-conspirator David Doogan before the murders about taking Farrah’s property, combined with Armstrong’s deliberate actions in taking property after killing 2 Ring III cites former Vice Chief Justice Gordon’s -97, -02 (1983) ( ), for the proposition that the (F)(5) aggravating factor requires proof “that the murder would not have occurred but for the defendant’s pecuniary motive.” Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 560, ¶ 30, 65 P.3d at 941 (emphasis added).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
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
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
See, , (saving spent bullet from crime); , (wearing a necklace with a charm that had belonged to victim)
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
The defendant kept a spent bullet as a souvenir of his crime and later commented, “You should have seen Charley when I hit him with those cutters.”
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
2259 , 72 L.Ed.2d 863 (1982); , , , cert.
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
180 , 74 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982); , , , cert.
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 203 (1984); , (saving souvenir bullet and bragging to friends), cert.
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
(Gordon, J., specially concurring and arguing that § 13-703(F)(5) applies only to circumstances in which the defendant is a hired killer), cert.
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
“Trial courts have great discretion in the admission of photographs____ As long as the photograph has some probative value it is admissible even if inflammatory.”
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993