Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lambright, 673 P.2d 1.

67 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
¶92 Additionally, “[t]rial judges have inherent power and discretion to adopt special, individualized procedures designed to promote the ends of justice in each case that comes before them.” ( (Feldman, J., specially concurring)); –04, –67 (1984) (“The trial judge is armed with both discretionary power and rules which he may use to control proceedings.”); Fed.
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
-70 , -8 (1983), overruled on other grounds by Hedlund, v. Sheldon
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
See, , (saving spent bullet from crime); , (wearing a necklace with a charm that had belonged to victim)
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
(finding mental suffering where victim was abducted, sexually assaulted, and in fear for her life as shown by her trembling and begging to be released).
State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
overruled on other grounds
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); , (staging victory celebration after the murder), cert.
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
In Hedlund v. Sheldon, we held that a trial judge’s decision to impanel dual juries for co-defendants was not a rule of procedure, but rather was “ ‘the exercise of an individual judge’s discretion to use a particular technique in order to meet a specific problem’ in a single case.” , , (Feldman, J., specially concurring), cert.
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(witness impeached at trial but credibility of witness for trier-of-fact and not appellate court), cert.
State v. Aussie 854 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Aussie 854 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
1404 , 113 L.Ed.2d 460 (1991); -71 , -9 (1983), cert.
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
See, , (fact that participant in particularly heinous crime was granted immunity in exchange for testimony did not outweigh aggravating factors), ce rt.
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
689, 696 , 88 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986); , (defendant has no right to have jury participate in sentencing), citing Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 56 , 659 P.2d at 15 ; , (there is no constitutional right to have jury find aggravating or mitigating circumstances) (cita *368 tions o
Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
Hedlund v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hedlund v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the Arizona Supreme Court clearly prohibited the use of dual juries 1 in the *567 absence of approved guidelines.
In Re the Rights Ex Rel. Gila River 830 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1992
In Re the Rights Ex Rel. Gila River 830 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1992
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
163 Ariz. at 72, 786 P.2d at 402 (citations omitted); , cert.
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Gallagher 818 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Gallagher 818 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
State v. Stevens, 158 Ariz. at 599, 764 P.2d at 728 ; State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. at 247, 762 P.2d at 534 ; , cert.
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
We have previously stated, “the disposition of other persons involved in the crime is an important factor in determining the proportionality of a capital sentence ...” , cert.
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
the state requested an accomplice instruction and argued an accomplice theory to the jury which was supported by the evidence.
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988