Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kreps, 706 P.2d 1213.

35 citing documents.

State v. Velasquez-Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Velasquez-Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind and may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind and may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
2 Even though “premeditation can occur as instantaneously as ‘successive thoughts of the mind,’ we have nonetheless required proof, whether direct or circumstantial, of actual reflection.” Id.; , (“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); , (same).
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
(“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); , (same).
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
386, 389 , (same); , (same), , (“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); State v. Vickers (Vickers II), , (same); , (same); State v. Vickers (Vickers I), , (same).
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
For example, -49 , -16 (1985), after setting forth the statute in haec verba, our supreme court noted that the state was required to prove that before the act of killing, “a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection.”
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
While the evidence as a whole was sufficient to sustain a murder verdict, to sustain the charge of premeditated murder the prosecution must prove that Defendant “made a decision to kill prior to the act of killing.”
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
To prove premeditation, the state must show that the “defendant made a decision to kill prior to the act of killing.”
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
Premeditation requires proof that the defendant “made a decision to kill prior to the act of killing.”
State v. Van Den Berg 791 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Van Den Berg 791 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The necessary premeditation “may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind and may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
as follows: The state bears the burden of proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.