Cited by

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

93 citing documents.

STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Kiger 229 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
¶54 We review the jury’s Enmund/Tison finding for substantial evidence, “viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 368-69 ¶ 45, -11 (2005).
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
uhs argues, he entered Herrera’s apartment intending to commit murder.4 ¶24 We review the sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding, “viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 368–69 ¶ 45, –11 (2005).
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 137 , ¶ 53 , , 336 n. 5, 337, ¶¶ 18, 20, , 378 n. 5, 379 (2005); ¶ 19
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 373 ¶ 74 & n.12
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
We review a sufficiency of the evidence claim by determining “whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” ¶ 93, (citing State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 368-69, ¶ 45, -11 (2005)).
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See, -17 (2007); -12 (2005); -50 (2003); State v. Cañez, ¶¶ 29-30, -26 (1999).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
¶ 141, & n.12 ¶ 74, & n.12 (2005).
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
To determine whether conduct is deemed a single act, “[t]he test requires that we identify the.ultimate crime, discard the evidence that fulfills' the elements of that crime, and then determine whether the remaining facts satisfy the elements of the other erime[ ].” ¶ 58
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
¶27 The trial judge denied Bocharski’s request to death- qualify the jurors with a ¶ 28, in which jurors who had reservations about the death penalty were taken into chambers for individual questioning.
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
¶ 74 & n.12, & n.12 (2005).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
§ 13-703.04.A; ¶ 77, (“[The Court] independently determines ‘if the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency in light of existing aggravation.’” (citation omitted)).
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
( ¶ 45, ), the issue is subsumed in our independent review.
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 375, app., cert.
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 43, 110 S. Ct. 2715, 2719 (1990); -07 (2005) (rejecting argument that new death penalty statute violated ex post facto provisions of state and federal constitutions “[b]ecause this procedural change does not retroactively alter the definition of the crime of murder or increase the penalty”).
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
State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360, 368-69, ¶ 45, -11 (2005).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
¶ 53, (finding defendant waived argument by inviting error at trial).
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
Finally, “[w]e do not defer to the findings or decision of the jury,” with respect to aggravation or mitigation, when “determin[ing] the propriety of the death sentence.” ¶ 77
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
¶¶ 74, 76-77, ___, ¶ 18, -07 (2005), and therefore reject Glassel’s contentions.