Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gerlaugh, 654 P.2d 800.
- State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
-
State v. Anderson
111 P.3d 369
Ariz. 2005
Photographs must not be introduced, however, “for the sole purpose of inflaming the jury.”
- State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA
6 P.3d 323
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 506 , 662 P.2d at 1013
- State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
-
State v. Spreitz
945 P.2d 1260
Ariz. 1997
However, this court has declared that it will reverse on appeal if “gruesome evidence is admitted for the sole purpose of inflaming the jury.” , ( , ) (emphasis added).
- State v. Stricklin 955 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
- State v. Stricklin 955 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
- State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
- State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
- State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
- State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
- State v. Villa 880 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
- State v. Villa 880 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
- State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Evans 836 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State v. Evans 836 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
-
State v. Atwood
832 P.2d 593
Ariz. 1992
(identical assertion rejected); (5) Imposition of the death penalty for murder and life imprisonment for kidnapping violated defendant’s constitutional right against double punishment, -41 , -60 (1985) (identical assertion rejected), overruled on other grounds, , , (identical assertion rejected); (6) The trial court improperly considered a presentence report, see Beaty, 158 Ariz. at 244 , 762 P.2d at 531 ("Absent proof to the contrary, the trial judge in a capital case must be presumed to be abl
- State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Kelly 716 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- State v. Kelly 716 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
-
State v. Williams
698 P.2d 678
Ariz. 1985
1 The granting of a motion to sever is within the discretion of the trial court, , supplemented , and will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion or demonstration of prejudice.
- 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