Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clabourne, 690 P.2d 54.

142 citing documents.

State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
We have also considered the following similar cases in which we found the death penalty properly imposed: -48 , -67 (1984); , cert.
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
(age was not a mitigating factor for defendant who was 20 years old); , (age was not a mitigating factor for defendant who was 20 years old), cert.
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
(test for voluntariness when defendant is under influence of narcotics or mental disabilities is whether condition renders him unable to understand the meaning of his statement).
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
State v. Sommer 745 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Sommer 745 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
A motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted only where there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
The test for voluntariness in cases involving a defendant with mental disabilities is “whether these problems render him unable to understand the meaning of his statements.”
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
We have also considered the following similar cases in which we found the death penalty properly imposed: , , cert.
State v. Fatty 724 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Fatty 724 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Royer 724 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Royer 724 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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. Sparks 708 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sparks 708 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
We have defined substantial evidence as “ ‘more than a scintilla and is such proof as a reasonable mind would employ to support the conclusion reached.’ ” See also, , citing State v. (Raymond) Tison, , cert.
State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
See, , (age twenty); , (Gillies I) (age twenty); , (age sixteen sufficiently young to establish mitigating factor).
State v. Borbon 706 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1985
State v. Borbon 706 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1985
Directed Verdict Pursuant to Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal when there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” We have defined substantial evidence as “more than a scintilla and * * * such proof as a reasonable mind would employ to support the conclusion reached.”
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
at 876 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 11 ; , (defendant was 20 at the time of the crime); , (defendant was 22 at the time of the crime).
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
We have stated that a Rule 20 motion for judgment will be granted only when there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. White 697 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1985
State v. White 697 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1985