Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gomez, 123 P.3d 1131.

64 citing documents.

State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The court clarified “[n]atural life under the statute.” ¶ 35 n.7 (2005) (“As we have previously emphasized, trial judges should clearly identify the specific statute under which they are sentencing a criminal defendant in order to facilitate appellate review.”); (“When sentence is imposed the court should state with car
State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2025
¶18 This Court’s is instructive.
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
As such, a jury may properly convict a defendant for first degree murder even if “six jurors found premeditation and six found felony murder.” State v. (Fabio E.) Gomez, ¶ 16 n.3 (2005) (“A jury need not be unanimous as to the theory of first degree murder as long as all agree that the murder was committed.”).
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 22 (2009); ¶ 20 (2005).
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Deck, 544 U.S. at 629; -03, ¶¶ 40-41 (2005).
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); n.3 , , 1135 n.3 (2005) (affirming conviction where six jurors found first-degree felony murder and six found first-degree premeditated murder).
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005); –03, ¶¶ 40–41 (2005).
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 (1977)); ¶ 20 (2005); State v. Van Adams, 194 5 STATE v. MEYER Decision of the Court Ariz. 408, 415, ¶ 17 (1999).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
Although we ordinarily review de novo whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the law, Burns, 237 Ariz. at 22 ¶ 83, 344 P.3d at 324, because Goudeau did not object to the aggravation phase jury instructions, we review for fundamental error, see State v. Gomez (Gomez I), ¶ 20
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–500, ¶¶ 24–26, –37 (2005).
State v. Dickinson 314 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Dickinson 314 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
1730 , 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977)); ¶ 20 , ¶ 17
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
As we observed in Dann III, however, as long as only one charge is alleged in a count of an indictment, jurors may “reach a verdict based on a combination of alternative findings.” 220 Ariz. at 367 ¶ 79, 207 P.3d at 620; ¶ 16 n.3, n.3 (2005) (noting that a “jury need not be unanimous as to the theory of first degree murder as long as all agree that the murder was committed”); State 22 STATE V. PAYNE Opinion of the C
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 52 , ("Because [the defendant] allowed advisory counsel to give the closing argument in the penalty phase and was represented by counsel during arguments on his motion for a new trial and on appeal, he revoked his waiver of counsel.”).
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005) (visible restraints); Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504-06 (1976) (jail garb); State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494, 502–03 ¶¶ 40–41, –40 (2005) 25 (visible restraints); -47 ¶ 8, -39 (1998) (jail garb).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
¶ 32, (finding no error in refusing 13 manslaughter instruction when defendant presented no evidence of adequate provocation for killing).
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
When Lehr later appeared in court for the reading of the sentencing verdicts, the trial court, consistent with Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), and State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494, 503 ¶ 43, made a case-specific 6 determination that security concerns warranted shackling Lehr.
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
“A decision based solely on a general jail policy of shackling defendants who wear jail garb or exercise their constitutional right to represent themselves is clearly not the kind of ‘case specific’ determination of ‘particular concerns’ that Deck requires.” ¶ 49, (footnote omitted).
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 21 , (citation omitted).
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
Cf. State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494, 498 n.3, ¶ 16, n.3 (2005) (“A jury need not be unanimous as to the theory of first degree murder so long as all agree that the murder was committed.”).