Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Murdaugh, 97 P.3d 844.

60 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
See, ¶ 84 (2004) (concluding evidence of cooperation entitled to little mitigating weight when defendant agreed to cooperate only after learning police found the crime scene).
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 35 (2004) (recognizing a defendant’s failure, during the change of plea and sentencing hearings, to claim he was incompetent to plead guilty was a factor supporting his competency to do so).
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
See Gunches, 240 Ariz. at 203–04 ¶¶ 15–20; Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 473–74 ¶¶ 244– 45; Hausner, 230 Ariz. at 85 ¶ 118; –34 ¶¶ 70–71 (2004).
State v. Donald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Donald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 17.3(a)(1)-(2), 17.4(c); ¶ 33 (2004).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 17.3(a)(1)–(2), 17.4(c); ¶ 33 (2004).
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
3 STATE v. CALDERON Decision of the Court “When a defendant stipulates, confesses or admits to facts sufficient to establish an aggravating circumstance, [the court] will regard that factor as established.” ¶ 51 (2004) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶6 “When ‘a defendant stipulates, confesses or admits to facts sufficient to establish an aggravating circumstance, [the court] will regard that factor as established.’” ¶ 51 (2004), ¶ 93 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
See, e.g., Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 473-74 ¶¶ 240-46, 372 P.3d at 997-98; Joseph, 230 Ariz. at 300 ¶ 20, 283 P.3d at 31; Hausner, 230 Ariz. at 84-85 ¶ 116, 280 P.3d at 628-29; ¶ 70, (stating that “[a] defendant may waive the presentation of mitigation if he is legally competent to do so”); Kayer, 194 Ariz. at 437 ¶ 46, 984 P.2d at 45 (stating that a defendant has the “freedom not to cooperate with a mitigation specialist and thereby potentially limit the mitigati
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
¶ 74, –40 ¶¶ 28–29, –38 (2003) (finding failure to prove (G)(1) factor where defendant presented “only minimal testimony about his drug use on the day of the murder”).
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
This instruction correctly defined the terms heinous and depraved, ¶ 59, and provided the jury with sufficient information to accurately weigh the (F)(6) aggravator.
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
See Moore, 222 Ariz. at 16- 17, ¶¶ 86-87, 213 P.3d at 165-66 (finding no fundamental error when “no reasonable jury could fail to find” aggravator proven beyond a reasonable doubt); ¶ 51, (“When ‘a defendant stipulates, confesses or admits to facts sufficient to establish an aggravating circumstance, [the court] will regard that factor as established.’” ( ¶ 93, (altera
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
-34 ¶¶ 70-71, -59 (2004).
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
“The term ‘heinous or depraved,’” as used in § 13-751(F)(6), describes “the defendant’s state of mind.” State v. Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. 19, 31 ¶ 59
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
¶ 67, State v. Cañez, ¶ 109, 4 Were the crimes committed today, the multiple homicides aggravator could also be alleged for each murder.
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 1 In a capital murder case, the capital aggravator of “especially heinous, cruel or depraved” under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-703(F)(6) (Supp.2006) ¶ 59
State of Arizona v. Patricia A. Barnes 159 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Patricia A. Barnes 159 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Rachel Marie Vallejo 158 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
See, ¶ 57, (defining heinous and depraved); ¶ 34, (defining relishing); State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 606, (defining witness elimination); -53, 659

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by