Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Woratzeck, 657 P.2d 865.

48 citing documents.

State v. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“When counsel opens the whole field of inquiry, he cannot assign its fruits as error on appeal.” (citation omitted) (holding that defense counsel opened the door to hearsay evidence of defendant’s involvement in a rape- robbery by asking a witness about the incident).
State v. Espriu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Espriu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In other words, “[w]hen counsel opens the whole field of inquiry, he cannot assign its fruits as error on appeal.” (citation omitted) (holding defense counsel opened the door to hearsay evidence of defendant’s involvement in a rape-robbery by asking a witness about the incident); ¶ 35 (App. 2007) (holding defense counsel opened the door to evidence defendant was suspected o
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
(holding defendant opens the door to further inquiry on a topic by introducing that topic in its examination of a witness); , cert.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
“The fact that a defendant was to some degree intoxicated is not, by itself, a mitigating circumstance.” McMurtrey, 151 Ariz. at 110 , 726 P.2d at 207 ( , ).
State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
“When counsel opens the whole field of inquiry, he cannot assign its fruits as error on appeal.”
In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
We have stated: “The fact that a defendant was to some degree intoxicated is not, by itself, a mitigating circumstance.”
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
548 , 85 L.Ed.2d 436 (1984), State v. McCall, supra; State v. Adamson, supra
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
State v: Gretzler, supra; State v. Tison, supra; , sentence aff'd, , , cert.
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, , , , , cert.
State v. Radjenovich 674 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Radjenovich 674 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
533 , 54 L.Ed.2d 467 (1977) (barrage of violence found depraved)
State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
(Gordon, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); , cf. Quince v. State, 414 So.2d 185, 187 (Fla.1982) (“beating, wounding, raping, and manual strangulation of an eighty-two year old, frail woman easily qualified as heinous”).