DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. LaGrand, 734 P.2d 563.

152 citing documents.

  • State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
    ¶ 13 The State, relying on LaGrand and Greene, argues that the defendant’s overall motive was to rob the victim and “this desire infect[ed] all other conduct of the defendant.” , , 439 ¶ 32, , 114 ¶ 32 (1998), cert.
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
    (holding that Waimuright was properly applied and met, despite the fact that judges determine sentence).
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
    (quoting Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. at 449 , 702 P.2d at 678 ); , (rejecting argument that jurors should not be death-qualified because Arizona is judge-sentencing state).
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
    ¶ 31 In State v. LaGrand, we stated that “[w]hen the defendant comes to rob, the defendant expects pecuniary gain and this desire infects all other conduct of the defendant.”
  • State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
    Aso, “[w]hen the defendant comes to rob, the defendant expects pecuniary gain and this desire infects *461 all other conduct of the defendant.”
  • State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
  • Explained State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
    ¶ 45 We clarified the requirements of Rule 804(b)(3) -29 , -71 (1987).
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
    In response, the state points to State v. LaGrand (Walter), , a case in which the defendant fatally stabbed a bank employee who had kicked the defendant in the leg during the defendant’s exit from the bank.
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
    2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)); Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 301, 896 P.2d at 841
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    A potential juror may be excused for cause if the trial court believes that his attitude will “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties.” , (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 419 , 105 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    would permit a reasonable person to believe’ the evidence on the preliminary questions.” , ( , , cert.
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true”; and (3) “A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” Rule 804(b)(3), Ariz. R.Evid.
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
    30 n. 4, , 572 n. 4 (prosecutor has discretion on what crimes to charge and prosecute), cert.
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    at 2035 , and therefore will not presume prejudice, see Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 631 , 832 P.2d at 648 ; , , cert.
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
    “[A]dmission of evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
    (similar assertion rejected); , (same).
  • State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992