Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 707 P.2d 289.

101 citing documents.

State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
435 , 130 L.Ed.2d 347 (1994)
State v. Greene 898 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1995
State v. Greene 898 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1995
Likewise, in State v. Smith, we explained that because the jury had found the defendant guilty of armed robbery, “the jury must necessarily have found that the defendant committed a dangerous offense involving the use of a deadly weapon.”
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
See Walton, 159 Ariz. at 587 , 769 P.2d at 1033 (finding that defendant could not have foreseen that the victim would live for as long as he did after gunshot wound to the head); , (same).
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
(noting that senselessness and helplessness alone are not “ordinarily determinative on the question of heinousness or depravity”).
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
609 , 126 L.Ed.2d 574 (1993); , (senselessness and helplessness, without other factors, “ordinarily [not] determinative on the question of heinousness or depravity”).
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
(murder not heinous or depraved when defendant shot unresisting store clerk during robbery); Blazak, 131 Ariz. at 604 , 643 P.2d at 700 (same finding when defendant shot robbery victim and 2 innocent bystanders).
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
at 405, 684 P.2d at 235 (citing Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 429 , 661 P.2d at 1130 (pointing gun to quiet third person)); , (risk to others factor could not be found merely because defendant took weapon into crowded public place where bystander could be hurt).
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
Lav-ers, 168 Ariz. at 392 , 814 P.2d at 349 , , , McCall, 139 Ariz. at 161 , 677 P.2d at 934 .
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
at 504 , at 302 (1985); , cert.
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
“To form the basis for [the] aggravating circumstance [of pecuniary gain], the hope of pecuniary gain must be the impetus for the murder, not merely its result.” , ( , (Gordon, V.C.J., specially concurring)), cert.
State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
In addition, we have repeatedly stated that “the death penalty [should be] reserved for those who stand out from the norm of first degree murderers either because of the act committed or because of the defendant’s back *15 ground.”
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
-99 , -97 (1985), and the cases cited therein.
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Natoli 764 P.2d 10 Ariz. 1988
State v. Natoli 764 P.2d 10 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hatch 754 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Hatch 754 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
The following cases are helpful in demonstrating the expectation of pecuniary gain: -03 , -301 (1985) (“defendant committed the murder solely for the purpose of gaining access to the cash register, which was under the victim’s control”; “the commission of the killing necessarily carried with it the expectation of pecuniary gain”).
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Distinguished State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. (Bernard) Smith, , State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52-53, 659 P.2d at 11-12 .
State v. Johnson 710 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1985