Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bracy, 703 P.2d 464.

103 citing documents.

State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
180 , 78 L.Ed.2d 161 (1983); , cert.
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
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
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); -84 , -37 (1986) (denial of jury sentencing and defendant’s burden of proving mitigating evidence are not unconstitutional); , (restricting judge’s sentencing discretion is not unconstitutional); , (failure to involve a jury in the capital sentencing decision does not violate the sixth amendment).
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
Vickers, 159 Ariz. at 543 , 768 P.2d at 1188 ; Beaty, 158 Ariz. at 246 , 762 P.2d at 533 ; , cert.
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
2169 , 85 L.Ed.2d 525 (1985); , , cert.
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
2444 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983), (“heinous, cruel, or depraved” factor is not unconstitutionally vague); , cert.
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
In doing so, we must then determine “whether the sentences of death are excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed by this court in similar cases ...” , ( , , cert.
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW In death penalty cases we must conduct a proportionality review to determine “whether the sentences of death are excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases.” , ( , ).
State v. Johnson 710 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1985
State v. Johnson 710 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
(instructions must be considered as a whole); , (accord).
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985