Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harding, 687 P.2d 1247.

48 citing documents.

State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-99 (1984) (citations omitted).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
(holding that permitting photographs of “little probative value” was not reversible error because they were also not “unfairly prejudicial”).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(upholding pecuniary gain factor where robbery victim asphyxiated as a result of binding and gagging).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(upholding pecuniary gain factor where robbery victim asphyxiated as a result of binding and gagging).
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
See, , -99 , -54 (1984); -61 , -90 (App.1983); -18 , -84 (App.1980).
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
We have also suggested that photographs of a homicide victim’s body are generally admissible because “the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder case.” , (quoting Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 288 , 660 P.2d at 1215 ).
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(court’s granting of state’s untimely motion to suspend Rule 8 time limits, although technically a violation of Rule 8, did not require reversal of conviction where no prejudice from error was shown); Rangas, 146 Ariz. at 158 , 704 P.2d at 288 .
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
at 327 , 819 P.2d at 913
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
(fortuitous survival of one victim was insufficient to prevent admission of prior bad act).
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
206 , 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987); , , , cert.
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
Hensley, 142 Ariz. at 604 , 691 P.2d at 694 (to prevent any witnesses from identifying the defendant after the bar robbery, he shot each witness in execution style); , (defendant bound and gagged robbery victim, resulting in death, to facilitate the robbery and evade detection).
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
2259 , 72 L.Ed.2d 863 (1982)), and cruel ( , , (1984) (murder, in which defendant bound and gagged the victim such that victim did not die instantaneously, but died slowly from asphyxiation, was clearly “committed in a cruel manner”)), and depraved (Ortiz, supra).
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
death that was not in furtherance of the defendant’s goal of pecuniary gain, which occurs during the course of or flight from a robbery, does not in itself provide a sufficient basis for finding the aggravating circumstance.” -04 , -95 (emphasis added) (-97 , -95 (1983), later appeal, , , cert.
State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Campbell 706 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Campbell 706 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
In State v. Harding, we affirmed Clark, supra, stating “[i]t is proper to inquire whether a prospective juror’s attitude concerning the death penalty would prevent him from making an impartial decision.” , , [No. 5742, filed 30 May 1984, slip op.
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
See, , (no mitigating circumstances shown; death penalty affirmed upon a finding that defendant had previously been convicted of a crime for which a life or death sentence was imposable in Arizona, that he had previously been convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence on another pers
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
at 498-499 , at 1253-1254 (1984).
American-La France & Foamite Corp. v. City of Phoenix 54 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1936