Cited by

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

153 citing documents.

State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
The final case cited by the state, , also involves facts wildly divergent from those involved here.
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
1065, 1067-68 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
1065, 1067-68 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); , , 726 *456 (1986).
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
However, a court may not find pecuniary gain on the mere finding that “a person has been killed and at the same time defendant has made a financial gain.”
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
The trial court may not find pecuniary gain in every case in which “a person has béen killed and at the same time defendant has made a financial gain.”
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
Herrera, 174 Ariz. at 398 , 850 P.2d at 111
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
-79 , -32 (1986), and concluded that a robbery conviction under it satisfied (F)(2), at least where it involved the use of a firearm.
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
The trial court may not find pecuniary gain in every case in which “a person has been killed and at the same time defendant has made a financial gain.”
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
We have rejected the argument that our weighing approach is unconstitutional and have held that “our statute provides constitutionally acceptable standards for deciding whether aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating factors.” , see also Stokley, 182 Ariz. at 516 , 898 P.2d at 465
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 411 , 844 P.2d at 578
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 411 , 844 P.2d at 578
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
In fact, , is the only case in which we have given weight to both senselessness and witness elimination.
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
He claims that the robbery ended when he was confronted by Darrel Wagner and that the subsequent murder was “unexpected and accidental.” , (“Factors to be considered in making this [pecuniary gain] determination are whether the murder was part of a larger scheme or was instead unexpected or accidental.”).
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
King, 180 Ariz. at 286 , 883 P.2d at 1042 ; Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 167 , 823 P.2d at 34 ; Stanley, 167 Ariz. at 528 , 809 P.2d at 953 ; , , cert.
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 174 , 823 P.2d at 41 ( , , , did not hold that killing merely to eliminate a witness was an aggravating circumstance).
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
and decline Henry’s invitation to revisit the issue.
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
(Constitution does not require the state to prove that aggravation outweighs mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
at 3054-55; -84 , -37 (1986).
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
1404 , 113 L.Ed.2d 460 (1991)
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
(“When age is offered as a mitigating cir *35 cumstance, its weight may be discounted by the extent and duration of defendant’s participation.”).
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
(“When age is offered as a mitigating factor, its weight may be discounted by the extent and duration of defendant’s participation.”).