Cited by

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

123 citing documents.

State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
-32 ¶¶ 19-20, -42 (2006).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Johnson, 212 Ariz. 425, 431, ¶ 15, cert.
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
The existence or lack of a causal link, however, aids us in “assessing the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence.” ¶ 65, (citation omitted).
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
See Anderson II, 210 Ariz. at 350, ¶ 97, 111 P.3d at 392; cf. State v. Johnson, 212 Ariz. - 19 - 425, 440, ¶ 65, (affording evidence of defendant’s mental impairment “minimal value” because defendant knew right from wrong), cert.
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
is unconstitutionally vague when applied by a jury because without proportionality review the jury has no way to determine whether the murder for which it has found the defendant guilty is “above the norm of other first degree murders.” -32, ¶¶ 19-20, -42, cert.
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
¶ 35, (noting trial court’s discretion in conducting voir dire), cert.
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. Johnson, 212 Ariz. 425, 434, ¶ 31, cert.
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. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006