Cited by

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

130 citing documents.

State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
This Court rejected this claim in State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, 507, ¶¶ 47-49, -71, ¶¶ 81-87, -17 (2005).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 349 ¶ 92, 111 P.3d at 391; -71 ¶¶ 81-87, -17 (2005).
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
We rejected this argument in State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, 70-71 ¶¶ 81-87, -17, cert.
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
Explained State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
In State v. Carreon, we clarified that the bystander must be subjected to the grave risk of death as a direct result of the defendant’s “murderous act.” ¶ 63, (emphasis added), cert.
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Rafael Real Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Rafael Real Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Owens, 484 U.S. at 559, 108 S. Ct. at 842; cert.
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
in State v. Carreon, explaining that it promotes “reliability and nonarbitrariness by requiring that the jury consider and give effect to the defendant’s mitigating evidence in the form of a - 68 - ‘reasoned moral response’ rather than an emotional one.” ¶ 86, (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 493 (1990)).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
See, , 67 ¶ 63, (collecting recent cases).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, 65 ¶ 50 n.11, n.11 (2005).
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995) (stating that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments “require criminal convictions to rest upon a 12 jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt”); ¶¶ 44-48, (holding that even when a defendant stipulates to an element of an offense, the jury must be asked to find that element beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶ 10 , our supreme court held that consecutive sentences were not permissible for prohibited possession and attempted murder under circumstances when the defendant’s prohibited possession of a firearm did not expose the victim to “a risk that exceeded that inherent in the attempt on [the vi
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
See State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, 76, ¶ 123, (holding that counsel, to avoid preclusion of issue on appeal, must argue issue in body of brief; list of issues in brief is not adequate).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
547 ¶¶ 15-42, (“Ring III”), , 60-61 ¶¶ 17-22, -07 (2005), and therefore need not discuss them here.