Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Roseberry, 111 P.3d 402.

93 citing documents.

State v. Swift Hawk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Swift Hawk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
d punishment); ¶ 17 (2003) ("Because [the defendant] had actual, although oral, notice of the prosecutor's intent to use the aggravated assault conviction as a prior serious offense aggravating circumstance and the delay caused him no prejudice, the State adequately noticed the prior serious conviction aggravating circumstance."); ¶ 25 (2005) (finding lack of formal notice was not fundamental error because the defendant "had actual notice of the aggravating circumstance before trial" and admitte
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The third Gordon prong turns on whether the secondary crime "subjected the victim 'to a different or additional risk of harm than that inherent in the ultimate offense.'" ¶ 58 (2005) (quoting Gordon, 161 Ariz. at 314).
State v. Davidsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Davidsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 58 (2005) (explaining the other Gordon factors are examined only when the first factor permits consecutive sentences).
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶22 We review questions of sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), and will vacate the jury’s finding of an aggravating circumstance only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, –69, ¶ 45 (2005).
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
First, this court applies the “identical elements test” by “identify[ing] the ultimate crime, discard[ing] the evidence that fulfills the elements of that crime, and then determin[ing] whether the remaining facts satisfy the elements of the other crimes.” ¶ 58 (2005) (citing Gordon, 161 Ariz. at 312).
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
We review that finding for “substantial evidence, ‘viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.’” ¶ 54 (2010) (–69 ¶ 45 (2005)).
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 13-1102(C) (defining negligent homicide as a class 4 felony); -371, ¶ 59 (2005) (using the class of felony to determine which charge is the ultimate offense).
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
¶¶ 63–64 (2008) (affirming the defendant’s death sentence when the sole aggravating factor, pecuniary gain, was weighed against the mitigating evidence presented); –74 ¶¶ 77–79 (2005) (same); Spears, 184 Ariz. at 295 (same).
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Roseberry , , n.10
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 47 (2005) (stating that “neither the State nor the defense presented any new evidence because the aggravation jury was the same jury that heard the guilt-phase evidence”).
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Id.; -71, ¶¶ 57-62 (2005).
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
In doing so, we review the record de novo, considering 27 STATE V. LYNCH Opinion of the Court “the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 77, ( ¶ 60, ).
State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry 353 P.3d 847 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry 353 P.3d 847 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
¶ 74 n.12, n.12 (2005) (“There cannot be a special verdict on mitigation because the jurors need not agree that a mitigating factor has been proven to exist.”).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
( ¶ 45, ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 373, ¶ 74 & n.12
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 373, ¶ 74 & n.12
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Kiger 229 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010