Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hensley, 691 P.2d 689.

80 citing documents.

Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“In determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, the trial judge is invested with considerable discretion,” which “will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused.”
Hanson v. Bindl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hanson v. Bindl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“In determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, the trial judge is invested with considerable discretion,” which “will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused.”
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“In determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, the trial judge is invested with considerable discretion.”
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Nothing in our decision should be read to undermine the “considerable discretion” the superior court maintains in every court proceeding to “determin[e] the relevancy and admissibility of evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
at 600; see also Marlow, 163 Ariz. at 71–72 (pecuniary gain outweighed by “dramatic disparity” in sentence compared to co-defendant); Rockwell, 161 Ariz. at 15–16 (mitigation evidence showing defendant suffered severe trauma and head injuries following motorcycle accident years earlier outweighed financial motive); (leniency not warranted where defendant shot victims in back of head after robbery to eliminate witnesses and only mitigating evidence that defendant “obtained a G.E.D.
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
The only motivation for the killings was to leave no witnesses to the robbery.”); , (defendant executed the victims during the robbery of a bar; court found “the murders were a part of the overall scheme of the robbery with the specific purpose to facilitate the robbers’ escape”); LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 36 , 734 P.2d at 578 (defendant stabbed the bank clerk when the cle
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
-04 , -95 (1984) (defendant was sentenced to death after shooting three people in the course of robbing a bar; only mitigating circumstance was that defendant had obtained a G.E.D.).
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
Although we find this educational achievement to be slightly mitigating, , (ob-taining G.E.D.
State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
However, , “[e]ven if [defendant] shot the victim after the money was taken ..., the murder was part and parcel of the robbery because it resulted in eliminating the only witness to the crime.” , (victim killed to facilitate escape after robbery); Libberton, 141 Ariz. at 139 , 685 P.2d at 1291 (1984) (victim killed to hinder detection of theft).
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
ughby, 181 Ariz. at 549 , 892 P.2d at 1338 (affirming death sentence where pecuniary gain was only aggravator but was extremely compelling and overshadowed substantial mitigating evidence); White, 168 Ariz. at 510-13 , 815 P.2d at 879-82 (1991) (affirming death sentence where pecuniary gain was only aggravator and lack of felony record was only mitigator); State v. Hensley, 142 Ariz, 598, 603-04, -95 (1984) (affirming death sentence where pecuniary gain was only aggravator and defendant’s G.E.D.
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
1199 , 117 L.Ed.2d 439 (1992); -04 , -95 (1984) (affirming death sentence where pecuniary gain was only aggravator and defendant’s G.E.D.
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
(defendants robbed victims, then shot them while they lay on the floor, supporting finding that deaths were not accidental or unexpected).
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
1058 , 122 L.Ed.2d 364 (1993)
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
2689 , 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985); , (defendant made witnesses to bar robbery lie on the floor, then shot them); with cases where pecuniary gain was not established: , (defendant killed victim to whom he owed money from drug transactions, but evidence did not demonstrate beyond a r
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
(because the victims were shot execution style after the robbery, the murders were neither unexpected nor accidental); , (drowning of Purolator guards after the robbery).
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991