Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Carreon, 107 P.3d 900.

130 citing documents.

State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
-71 ¶¶ 81- 87, -17 (2005).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
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
-72 ¶¶ 81-87, -18 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
-71, ¶¶ 81- 87, -17 (2005).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
–71, ¶¶ 81–87, –17 (2005).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
See Armstrong, 218 Ariz. at 463 ¶¶ 52-53, 189 P.3d at 390 (“[The victim] ended her statement by describing how the murders negatively affected her family and [her son] in particular because he lacked a fatherly figure in his life.”); ¶¶ 91- 93, (upholding statements that the victim’s daughter “almost committed suicide because she felt blamed” and that the victim’s son was “not going to school, hanging out with the wrong crowd [and] getting into drugs”).
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
-71 ¶¶ 81-87, -17 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
¶¶ 38, 42-43, -10 (2005) (upholding endangerment convictions where children asleep in bedroom when victims shot in adjacent room, thin wall separated the two rooms, and bedroom door in close proximity to where one victim collapsed).
State of Arizona v. Bianca Burgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Bianca Burgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶7 P.3d 900 (2005), to support its interpretation of the statute, we disagree.
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Carreon notes that the “trial court cautioned the jury not to consider the impact statements as aggravation and not to be tainted by sympathy or prejudice.” ¶ 93
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
This Court 28 -71 ¶¶ 81-87, -17 (2005).
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
See, -23 ¶¶ 96-120, -202 (2007); ¶¶ 96-98
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
V, VI, VIII, XIV; Ariz. Const. Art. II, §§ 1, 4, 15, 23, 24; -72, ¶¶ 81-87, -918 (2005).
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
-71 ¶¶ 81-87, -17 (2005).
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
e Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution require that the sentencer in a capital case ‘not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.’” ¶ 83, (emphasis omitted) (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978)).
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
¶¶ 47-48, Virgo, 190 Ariz. at 353, 947 P.2d at 927.
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, 70-71 ¶¶ 81-87, -17 (2005).
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
-71 ¶¶ 81-87, -17, cert.
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
at 353-54, 947 P.2d at 927-28 ; ¶ 47
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶¶ 108-09 , the State correctly concedes error.
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
mitigation evidence unduly prejudiced the jury.” ¶¶ 90-93, (reasoning that the “law permits victim impact evidence to rebut the defendant’s presentation of mitigation”).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
-71, ¶¶ 83-87, -17 (2005).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
- 71 ¶¶ 81-87, -917 (2005).