Cited by

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

179 citing documents.

State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
See, e.g., Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 513 , 662 P.2d at 1020 ; , (“[I]t [is] not necessary that all three elements, heinous, cruel, [and] depraved, be present in the murder.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
180 , 74 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982) (same); , (despite subnormal intelligence, lack of prior criminal record and some cooperation with the police, death penalty affirmed upon finding that the killing was done in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner); , , cert.
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
this court held that a killing committed during the perpetration of a robbery was a killing for pecuniary gain under A.R.S.
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
287 , 66 L.Ed.2d 141 (1980); , , , cert.
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
-55 , -36 (1985); , , cert.
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
It may not be found where they are in another room, , , cert.
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Johnson 710 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1985
State v. Johnson 710 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1985
Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Burciaga 705 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Burciaga 705 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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. Paul 703 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Paul 703 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
Defendant concedes that because this colloquy was similar to that approved previously by this court, , , cert.
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
ence, 17A A.R.S., which allows even relevant evidence to be excluded due to, among other things, “consideration of undue delay” or “waste of time.” “The weighing and balancing under Rule 403 is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it has been clearly abused.” , , , cert.
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983); , , cert.
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
This circumstance is applied to murders having a “financial motivation.” , , , , cert.
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984