Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Correll, 715 P.2d 721.

153 citing documents.

State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-77 , -30 (1986) (concluding, under similar circumstances, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial); , (“A declaration of a mistrial is the most dramatic remedy for trial error and sho
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
Sess.), they cannot serve to make Wallace death- eligible, see also Wallace III, 219 Ariz. at 6 n.4 ¶ 25, 191 P.3d at 169 n.4.
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
we have also found that depravity is indicated where defendant admitted he committed the murder to prevent the victim from testifying against him concerning a felony that occurred contemporaneously with the murder.” (citing 7 The following five factors support a finding of heinousness or depravity: (1) relishing; (2) infliction of gratuitous violence; (3) needless mutilation of the victim; (4) senselessness of the crime; and (5) helplessness of the victim.
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
Sess.), and cannot serve in this case to make Wallace death-eligible
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Garcia, , 151 P.3d at 536 ; , V 191, (change in law on temporary intoxication “was substantive because it deprived Moody of a defense” and, therefore, did not apply to his case); -82 , -35 (1986) (retroactive application of new, statutory sentencing aggravator violated constitutional ex post facto prohibition); , , 1391 (1984) (change in statute on insanity defense not retroactive).
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
-79, -32 (1986) (considering a California robbery conviction with firearm enhancement in determining if (F)(2) aggravator applied).
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
¶59 “Ending the life of a human being so that that person cannot testify against the defendant indicates a complete lack of understanding of the value of a human life.” State v. Smith, 35 (noting “depravity is indicated” where witness elimination occurs).
State v. Fell 115 P.3d 594 Ariz. 2005
State v. Fell 115 P.3d 594 Ariz. 2005
(holding that a law changing the aggravating circumstances that may be considered in a decision to impose the death penalty for murder under § 13-703 “is a substantive, rather than a procedural, change”).
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
-82 , -35 (1986) (finding that a change in a capital sentencing aggravating factor was a substantive change that required application of the version in effect at the time the offense was committed).
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
at 482 ¶ 11, 73 P.3d at 613 (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43 (1984); ).
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1192 , 140 L.Ed.2d 321 (1998); White, 160 Ariz. at 30 , 770 P.2d at 334 ; , , .
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
rev’d in part on other grounds by Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404 (9th Cir.1998).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
cilitate the Mller’s escape and hinder detection for the purpose of successfully procuring something of value, the pecuniary gain motive is present.”); , (even if committed after property had been taken, “the murder was part and parcel of the robbery because it resulted in eliminating the only witness to the crime.”); , (finding pecuniary gain aggravation where “the murders were part of the overall scheme of the robbery with the specific purpose to facilitate the robber’s escape.”).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
49 detection for the purpose of successfully procuring something of value, the pecuniary gain motive is present.”); (even if committed after property had been taken, “the murder was part and parcel of the robbery because it resulted in eliminating the only witness to the crime.”); (finding pecuniary gain aggravation where “the murders were part of the overall scheme of the robbery with the specific purpose to facilitate the robber’s escape.”).
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
See, , (defendant killed a convenience store clerk to gain access to the cash register; court found “[u]nder the facts of this case (but certainly not of all robberies) the commission of the killing necessarily carried with it the expectation of pecuniary gain”); , (defendant robbed home of victims, then took victims to desert where he shot and killed them; court held that defendant “very carefully executed the armed robbery, and the murders were part of the scheme of robbery.
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
(helplessness and relishing); , (helplessness and relishing); , (needless mutilation of victim); , (relishing, gratuitous violence, and helplessness); , (gratuitous violence and helplessness).
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
(noting that pecuniary gain does not exist in every case where “a person has been killed and at the same time defendant has made a financial gain”).
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
(finding pecuniary gain where the only motivation for murders was to ensure no witnesses to robbery).
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
(citations omitted) (reaching similar result for new (F)(8) factor);.
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
cert, denied, Kemp v. Arizona, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct.
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996