Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ortiz, 639 P.2d 1020.

118 citing documents.

State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
2909, 2934 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (once guilt is determined, additional relevant information may be considered for sentencing) (citation omitted); , (any relevant evidence may be used to rebut defendant’s mitigating circumstances, even if inadmissible at trial).
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
and heinousness focuses on society’s view of the murder as compared to other murders.”
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
We have previously held that due process in a § 13-703 hearing requires that the prosecutor give defendant “(1) disclosure of the aggravating circumstances the state *63 will seek to prove; (2) disclosure of the evidence the state will use; and (3) disclosure sufficiently in advance of the hearing that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to prepare rebuttal.” , , cert.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
2689 , 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985); , cert.
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
§ 13-604); -10 , -35 (1981) (death of murder victim does not terminate the “commission of the offense” within the meaning of A.R.S.
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
Distinguished State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977) (death penalty is not cruel and unusual); -84 , -37 (1986) (denial of jury sentencing, burden of proving mitigation on the defendant, no *585 proof beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravation outweighs mitigation, and inadequate standards to weigh the factors are not unconstitutional); , cert.
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
2444 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983); , cert.
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
2444 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983) (prosecutorial discretion); , cert.
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lujan, supra; , , , cert.
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983); , cert.
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Asbury 701 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Asbury 701 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Although the confrontation clause, by its terms, applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings, , basic concepts of fairness, justice and impartiality mandate that the defendant be allowed, at an aggravation and mitigation hearing, to cross-examine the victims in order to bring out mitigating circumstances.
State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hauss 688 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Hauss 688 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
State v. Villarreal 666 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Villarreal 666 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
The conspiracy section of our new criminal code adopts the “unilateral" concept in place of the traditional “bilateral concept.”
State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983