Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Carriger, 692 P.2d 991.

184 citing documents.

Canion v. Cole 115 P.3d 1261 Ariz. 2005
R. 32.1; -46, -95 (1984).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(“A defendant is guilty when convicted and if he chooses not to publicly admit his guilt, that is irrelevant to a sentencing determination.”); , (“[I]t would be irrational or disingenuous to expect or require one who
Canion v. Cole Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 91 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Canion v. Cole Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 91 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Rule 32 is separate and apart from the right to appeal, and it is not designed to afford a second appeal.” , (citation omitted), ce rt.
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. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); , (reviewing death sentence).
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
in his second PCR in 1983 (as well as his first, in 1978) did not operate as a waiver because “[t]o support a finding of waiver under [Rule 32.2] subsection (c), the record must indicate that petitioner was aware of the necessity of raising in his appeal the claim he now presents and that he knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally waived his right to present his claim” ( , cert.
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
(saving a life is a mitigating circumstance), cert.
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wilson 875 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Wilson 875 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
Amaya-Ruiz, supra; , cert.
State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
207 , 98 L.Ed.2d 158 (1987), we explained that “the state must show the actor’s motivation was the expectation of pecuniary gain,” and that “[p]ecuniary consideration must be a cause of the murder, not merely a result” ( , cert.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Aguilar 823 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Aguilar 823 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
As we noted in State v. Carriger, “when an individual is murdered for the pecuniary gain of the assailant, we think the legislature can properly punish this more severely than other first degree murders, and we abide by their decision.” , ( , cert.
State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990