Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420.

93 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
From this possibility of long reflection, P.3d 420 (2003), for the proposition that the last sentence of the trial court’s above instruction should be used “[o]nly when the facts of a case require it.” Id.
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 206-07 (1976); ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
“‘Premeditation’ means that the defendant acts with either the intention or knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection.” ¶ 12, (quoting A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
reflected on the decision before killing.” –92 ¶ 15, –13 (2012) ( ¶ 32, ) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert.
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(law must provide some legally fixed standards for those enforcing it).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
-80 ¶¶ 26-33, -29 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
reflected on the decision before killing.” ¶ 32
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
¶ 27, “the legislature did not intend to eliminate the requirement of reflection altogether or to allow the state to substitute the mere passing of time for the element of premeditation,” but rather “intended to relieve the state of the burden of proving a defendant’
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington 266 P.3d 1057 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington 266 P.3d 1057 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
¶53 During the settling of jury instructions, Lehr objected to the premeditation instruction, arguing that the last sentence was impermissible under State v. Thompson, 204 Ariz. 471
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 17 The first degree murder jury instruction used by the superior court was drawn from our supreme court’s
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
admitted murdering Valerie.6 II A ¶15 Kiles first argues that the trial court’s instruction on premeditation, combined with the prosecutor’s arguments, ran afoul of this Court’s ruling in State v. Thompson, 204 Ariz. 471, 479-80, ¶¶ 32-34, -29 (2003).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
¶65 The use of the phrase “proof of actual reflection is not required” is an erroneous instruction on premeditation if given in a jury instruction “without further clarification.” ¶ 34, accord Dann I, 205 Ariz. at 565 ¶ 16, 74 P.3d at 239.
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
¶19 In State v. Thompson, we found the use of the phrase “proof of actual reflection is not required” to be error if given in a jury instruction “without further clarification.” ¶ 34
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
The instruction provided that premeditation can be “as instantaneous as successive thoughts in the mind.” , 479-80 ¶ 32, -29 (2003), , 565 ¶ 16 & n. 2, , 239 & n. 2 (2003).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In light of our decision to vacate the convictions and remand for retrial, however, as well as the Arizona Supreme Court’s , we need not address this argument.
State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
lement of premeditation,” thus “obliterating the distinction between first degree murder and second degree murder,” and, second, he maintains that, if actual reflection remains an element of first degree murder, the legislature has “impermissibly shifted the burden of proving (or disproving) the existence of that element on to the defendant.” ¶ 13 , and do not address them further here.
State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“Thus, we construe statutes sensibly, attempting to effectuate the intent of the legislature, and we avoid constructions that would render statutes invalid or parts of them meaningless.” ¶ 10