Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Greenawalt, 624 P.2d 828.

111 citing documents.

State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
Defendant does not allege “juror misconduct or disobedience to the court’s admonitions,” , and we have found none in our review of the record.
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
enawalt, we stated that the lower court was not compelled to accept Dr. Melendez’ psychiatric opinion of the mental condition of Greenawalt in the light of the unproven nature of the theory relied upon by Dr. Melendez for his diagnosis and the unsatisfactory explanation of certain events in Greenawalt’s life which, in combination, did not adequately substantiate his claim of impaired capacity____ -73 , -51 (citations omitted), cert.
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
2444 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983); , , cert.
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
He argues that the only way the trial court could have ensured appellant’s right to a fair trial was to “start over.” The party who challenges the jury panel has the burden of showing that the panel selection was the result of a “material departure from the requirements of law.”
State v. Burrus 729 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Burrus 729 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
See also State v. Gillies, 142 Ariz. at 568-69, 691 P.2d at 689-90 ; , cert.
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
tences and prior felony convictions involving violence, that crime created grave risk of death to others and that offense committed for pecuniary gain); , (no mitigating circumstances *407 found; death sentence affirmed upon finding that defendant had prior felony convictions involving threat or use of violence upon others); , cert.
State v. McMurtrey 691 P.2d 1099 Ariz. 1984
State v. McMurtrey 691 P.2d 1099 Ariz. 1984
We have only stated that the defendant has a burden of showing “some form of affirmative evidence.” , cert.
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 673 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 673 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
As to the showing required by the prosecution in this instance, we refer to Rule 16.2(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., which states in pertinent part: “The prosecutor shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the lawfulness in all respects of the acquisition of all evidence which he will use at trial.”
State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
1492 , 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982); , , cert.
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1983
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1983
State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983
State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983
State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Will 672 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Will 672 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
ceration a violent person may become a menace to other prisoners, , (prison inmate committed violent strangulation and stabbing murder of another prisoner; he later killed yet another prisoner by burning him to death, see No. 5698, State v. Vickers), or may escape and become a menace to the public at large, , cert.
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
The defendant is not entitled to a particular jury, but only a fair one, , , , and unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error.
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Blazak 643 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1982
State v. Blazak 643 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1982
State v. Smith 638 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1981