Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tucker, 68 P.3d 110.

136 citing documents.

State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
The 1 We view the facts in the “light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” State v. Tucker (Tucker I), n.1, ¶ 3, n.1 (2003).
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Tucker, 205 Ariz. 157, ¶ 41
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
§ 13-703.04(A) (Supp. 2006), the facts are presented in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, n.1
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker (Tucker I), ¶ 69
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
Statements qualify as a present sense impression if they “describe an event or condition, that was perceived by the declarant, and the statement [is] made immediately after [or contemporaneous with] the event.” ¶ 43, 8 The memorandum need not be made by or at the direction of the witness.
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Consequently, the court concluded that “‘any error as to the (F)(8) aggravator was harmless because we believe that no reasonable jury could have found differently than the trial judge.’” Id.
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 645 (1991); ¶ 51
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
To establish this aggravating factor, the State must prove not only that the defendant committed multiple homicides, but also that the murders occurred during “a continuous course of criminal conduct.” , 169 ¶ 65, ( , ).
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 55 , ("[W]e must analyze each of [the] aggravating factors for harmless error."); Brown, 209 Ariz. at 203, ¶ 12 , 99 P.3d at 18 (in a case in which multiple aggravating facts are alleged, the jury must find "these facts.").
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
¶ 66, (finding the motivational element of the (F)(8) aggravator satisfied after finding it “difficult to imagine a motive for the killings unrelated to the murder of [the primary victim]”).
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003