Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Grell, 135 P.3d 696.

34 citing documents.

State v. Hon. kemp/apolinar Altamirano Ariz. 2020
State v. Hon. kemp/apolinar Altamirano Ariz. 2020
cuss the impact of the recent United States Supreme Court cases, Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (“Moore I”), and Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (2019) (“Moore II”), on § 13-753(K)(1)’s definition of “adaptive behavior.” We hold that Moore I and Moore II did not eliminate § 13- 753(K)(1)’s requirements that the trial court: (1) conduct an overall assessment, ¶ 62 (2006) (“Grell ∗ Chief Justice Robert Brutinel and Justice William G. Montgomery have recused themselves from this matter.
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 58 (2006) (citation omitted).
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
However, the case law interpreting § 13-4021(A) seems to use “insane” interchangeably with “incompetent.” ¶ 74 (2006) (Bales, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
¶ 62, (“Grell II”); ¶ 34
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 58, Fimbres, 222 Ariz. at 300, ¶ 21, 213 P.3d at 1027.
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P. 11.1; cf. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318 (2002) (“Mentally retarded persons frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial.”); ¶ 38, (“A defendant deemed to have mental retardation, however, is not shielded from trial.”).
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Discussion ¶ 6 At a hearing conducted in accordance with § 13-753, “the defendant has the burden of proving intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence.” § 13-753(G); see also State v. Grell (Grell II), , (statute’s burden of proof requirements constitutionally permissible).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
“We review the decision to admit or exclude [expert testimonial] evidence for abuse of discretion.” 6 State v. Grell (Grell II), ¶ 55
State of Arizona v. Shawn Ryan Grell 291 P.3d 350 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Shawn Ryan Grell 291 P.3d 350 Ariz. 2013
See State v. Grell (Grell II), ¶ 63
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
erring to the (F)(6) prongs as “especially cruel” and “especially heinous/depraved” or “especially heinous or depraved”); Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. at 31 ¶ 59, 97 P.3d at 856 (stating that “[t]he term ‘heinous or depraved’ is used to describe the defendant’s state of mind”); n.2 ¶ 8, n.2 (2006) (noting that heinousness and depravity are often analyzed together).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“not inappropriate” to put burden on defendant who has access to information), cert.
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
See State v. Grell (Grell II), ¶ 15 & n.5, & n.5 (2006).