Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Emery, 688 P.2d 175.

40 citing documents.

State v. Guerrero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Charlson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Charlson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
("To remand in such cases would be inefficient if not futile.
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(explaining a party can lay sufficient evidentiary foundation by having a “witness .
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(after completing fundamental error review, affirming conviction for attempted first-degree murder); ("[A]ttempted first degree murder can be knowingly committed and, as such, is an offense in Arizona."); (implicitly recognizing as a general matter that attempted first-degree murder is an offense in Arizona).
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
901(a); (reasoning that a party can lay sufficient foundation for evidence by having a “witness .
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
901(a); , (reasoning that a party can lay sufficient foundation for evidence by having a “witness ...
State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Maximo 821 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Maximo 821 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
1441, 1448 , 108 L.Ed.2d 725, 737 (1990)
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
See, , -45 , -15 (1983); -97 , -28 (1982).
State v. Tison 774 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1989
State v. Tison 774 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1989
We will not make Enmund findings at the appellate level unless the “record compels an affirmative finding that the defendant killed, attempted to kill or intended to kill.”
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
The blade was admissible, , and counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to its receipt into evidence.
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
okay, it’s cool, no cars coming, get a shell chambered.” The phrase “ ‘intended to kill’ encompasses the situation where a defendant contemplated, anticipated, or intended that lethal force would or might be used or that life would or might be taken in accomplishing the underlying felony.” , (citations omitted).
State v. Best 703 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Best 703 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
(though determination of whether defendant convicted of first degree murder killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill ought to be made by trial court in determining whether to impose death penalty, Supreme Court will not remand case for resentencing when record compels finding on such issue
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by