Cited by

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

64 citing documents.

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
-500, -37 (2005); Dann I, 205 Ariz. at 566 & n.3 ¶¶ 19-20, 74 P.3d at 240 & n.3.
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 633 (2005); -03 ¶¶ 40-42, -40 (2005).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
n.3 ¶ 16, n.3 (2005) (reaffirming the principle 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”) (citing Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 645 (1991); ¶ 51
State v. Price 171 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2007
State v. Price 171 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2007
502 ¶ 36 n. 8, , 1139 n. 8 (2005) (declining to address constitutionality of finding aggravators not specified in the sentencing statute because defendant did not raise the issue); , 57 ¶ 103 n. 18, , 1217 n. 18 (2005) (same).
State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
2007 , 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005), recently reiterated the rule that a convicted defendant should not be visibly shackled even during the sentencing phase of trial absent justification on the record that there were “indisputably good reasons for shackling.” ¶ 46 , (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007