Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ellison, 140 P.3d 899.

413 citing documents.

State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
See Lynch, 225 Ariz. at 41 ¶ 79, 234 P.3d at 609; ¶ 120, (“Mental anguish is established if the victim experienced significant uncertainty as to her ultimate fate.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
“Evidentiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation Clause, however, are reviewed de novo.” ¶ 42
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
¶ 42, Davolt, 207 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 69, 84 P.3d at 475.
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
¶ 73, (finding reckless indifference when defendant bound victims and held pillow over one victim’s face).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
“Even if a juror is sincere in his promises to uphold the law, a judge may still reasonably find a juror’s equivocation ‘about whether he would take his personal biases into the jury room’ sufficient to substantially impair his duties as a juror, allowing a strike for cause.” ¶ 89, (quoting Glassel, 211 Ariz. at 48 ¶ 49, 116 P.3d at 1208).
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
n.19 ¶ 121, n.19 (2006) (rejecting state’s claim that strangling inherently cruel).
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
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
In this case the evidence shows that Valerie was conscious after the attack began and thus “experienced significant uncertainty as to her ultimate fate.” 18 Kiles separately raises on appeal the denial of his motion for acquittal of the (F)(6) aggravator under Ariz. R. Crim.
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
¶38 “A death sentence cannot be upheld if the jury was 15 selected by striking for cause those who ‘voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.’” ¶ 88, (quoting Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 522).
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
His childhood troubles deserve little value as a mitigator for the murder he committed at age thirty-three.” ¶ 136
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
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, State v. Van Adams, 194 A
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
¶ 31, (finding that jury instruction made it clear that the penalty phase jury was responsible for the sentencing decision); ¶ 83, (rejecting defendant’s argument that A.R.S.
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
§ 13-703(B) (applying rules of evidence to aggravation phase); , (defendant not permitted to “complain that evidence relevant to sentencing was presented at the guilt proceeding” because “nothing prevented [Ellison] from introducing evidence from the guilt proceeding at his sentencing proceeding”)
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
§ 13-703(B) (applying rules of evidence to aggravation phase); (defendant not permitted to “complain that evidence relevant to sentencing was presented at the guilt proceeding” because “nothing prevented [Ellison] from introducing evidence from the guilt proceeding at his sentencing proceeding”); 111 P.3d
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
-36 ¶¶ 77-80, -19 (2006).
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
denied, 128 S. Ct. 297 (2007) (“Both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have rejected the argument that a capital defendant must be allowed to present residual doubt evidence in mitigation.”); ¶ 82, cert.
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Id.; , -17 (2007); , , -50 (2003).
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007