Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Turner, 687 P.2d 1225.

46 citing documents.

State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(defenses not mutually exclusive when jury could have found core of both defenses true); see also Cruz, 137 Ariz. at 545.
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
at 238-39, 697 P.2d at 321 -22 ( , ).
State v. Johnson 903 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Johnson 903 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(parole); , , (any other release from confinement).
In Re Varbel 897 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1995
In Re Varbel 897 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1995
Because even under our criminal jurisprudence (except in death penalty cases), aggravating circumstances need only be "supported by reasonable evidence,” , ( , ), it is difficult to believe that a higher standard of proof could or should be required in attorney discipline cases.
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hurley, 154 Ariz. at 128 , 741 P.2d at 261 .
State v. Bruggeman 779 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Bruggeman 779 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Hudson 763 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hudson 763 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1988
(state need only prove by reasonable evidence that a defendant is subject to the provisions of A.R.S.
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
§ 13-604.01(A)); -75 , -30 (1984) (same).
State v. Nirschel 745 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1987
State v. Nirschel 745 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1987
State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
State v. Hudson 730 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1986
State v. Hudson 730 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1986
(disallowed analogy between A.R.S.
State v. Rickman 715 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1986
State v. Rickman 715 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1986
(testimony of parole officer that defendant was on parole at the time of the offense and admission by the defendant of parole status was reasonable evidence); , -35 (1985) (there is no distinction between probation and parole for
State v. Sowards 709 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sowards 709 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Weigel 702 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Weigel 702 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
we held that the provision of § 13-604(K) providing that the finding of prior convictions be made by the trier of fact did not apply to § 13-604.01.
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984