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. Carriger, 692 P.2d 991.

184 citing documents.

  • State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
    -68 , -38 (1986) (defendant’s use of several instruments when less violent alternatives available to accomplish intent to kill constitutes heinous or depraved state of mind); , (three separate forms of attack used to kill victim establishes both heinous and depraved state of mind), cert.
  • State v. Conner 786 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Conner 786 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
    we held that a petitioner had the burden to assert grounds that bring him within the provisions of Rule 32 in order to obtain relief, and a failure to comply with Rule 32 procedure will result in a finding that the petitioner waived his right to present a Rule 32 petition.
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Holder 745 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Holder 745 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Coleman 733 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Coleman 733 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
    B. Pecuniary Gain We have stated that “to prove pecuniary gain, the state must show the actor’s motivation was the expectation of pecuniary gain____” , cert.
  • State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
    1515 , 47 L.Ed.2d 766 (1976); , cert.
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
    See State v. Roscoe, supra, 145 Ariz. at 147-148 , 700 P.2d at 1326-1327
  • State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Court’s Comments at Sentencing Lastly the appellant contends that because the trial judge at the time of sentencing commented on appellant’s , in which the court said: “A defendant is guilty when convicted and if he chooses not to publicly admit his guilt, that is irrelevant to a sentencing determination.” We have reviewed the trial court’s comments and find that the remarks were made in connection with the court’s statement
  • 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
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
    We further find that neither defendant’s age, thirty-six at the time of the offenses, State v. Clark, supra, 126 Ariz., at 437 , 616 P.2d at 897 ; nor the fact that he was a model prisoner, -162 , -1011 (1984), are mitigating factors sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.