DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. James, 685 P.2d 1293.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (if Miranda warnings are administered, the next requirement for admissibility of statements is voluntariness).
  • State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
    ¶ 8 , (finding that “[p]ost-mortem mutilation indicates a mental state that is marked by debasement” (internal quotations omitted)); , (finding that “[t]he mode of disposing of the body itself demonstrates a certain callousness and depravity and disregard for the victim’s family who might never have learned of the fate of [the victim]” (internal quotations omitted)).
  • State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
    2347 , 85 L.Ed.2d 864 (1985); , , cert.
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
    3243 , 97 L.Ed.2d 748 (1987); , (court would not find pecuniary gain since jury had acquitted defendant on aggravated robbery and theft charges), cert.
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    548 , 83 L.Ed.2d 436 (1984); , , cert.
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
    548 , 83 L.Ed.2d 436 (1984); , cert.
  • State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
    The initiation requirement may be satisfied by statements that “represent a desire on the part of the accused to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation.” -145 , -1297 , cert.
  • State v. Ferreira 731 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Ferreira 731 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
    1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)
  • State v. Inman 728 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Inman 728 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    at 1885 , 68 L.Ed.2d at 386 ; , but only if the state shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspect initiated dialogue with the authorities.
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
    State v. Gillies, supra, 135 Ariz. at 515, 662 P.2d at 1022 ; , -32 (1980).
  • 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
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
    -147 , -1299 (1984) the three key words of subsection (F)(6) are in the disjunctive and any one of them would constitute an aggravating circumstance.