Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 133 P.3d 735.

123 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Arthur Cornell Wright 370 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Lua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[A] defendant is not prejudiced by a denial of severance where the jury is instructed to consider each offense separately and advised that each must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 13, (internal citations omitted).
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
We review de novo statutory interpretation issues, State v. Armstrong (Armstrong III), ¶ 54, and whether jury instructions properly state the law, ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
§ 13-751(J)(8)–(9); ¶ 50, (“A serious offense includes armed robbery.”).
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
Defendants are not entitled to “ask potential jurors what types of evidence they will consider to be mitigating.” Glassel, 211 Ariz. at 47 ¶ 44, 116 P.3d at 1207; ¶ 31, (noting that “[e]xtant authority unanimously rejects” the argument that a defendant is entitled to voir dire jury panel about specific mitigating factors).
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State v. Johnson, 212 Ariz. 425
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
¶86 “Heinousness and depravity go to a defendant’s mental state as reflected in his words and actions at or near the time of the offense.” ¶ 55
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Daniel Oliveri Michael Joseph Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Miller 245 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Daniel Oliveri Michael Joseph Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Miller 245 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
¶ 58, that this Court held that witness elimination alone could form the basis for a finding of heinousness or depravity.
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
23 ¶ 65, (according mental health mitigation evidence “minimal weight” on independent review when defendant knew right from wrong and the evidence did not have a causal nexus to the crime).
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
-35 ¶¶ 29-35, -45 (2006), Lynch argues that the trial court erred in telling the juror about the specific facts of this case.
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
“Heinousness and depravity go to a defendant’s mental state as reflected in his words and actions at or near the time of the offense.” ¶ 55
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
¶ 42, (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant’s request to ask jurors if they would automatically impose death upon finding specific aggravators); -35 ¶¶ 29-35, -45 (2006) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant’s request to ask jurors whether they regarded specific factors as mitigation).
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
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
Witness elimination is established when “the murder victim is a witness to some other crime, and is killed to prevent that person from testifying about the other crime.” State v. 35 Johnson, ¶ 57
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009