Cited by

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

413 citing documents.

State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
Pandeli did not, however, “provide[] any specific evidence that his brain [functioning] was actually altered by his past alcohol and drug abuse so as to cause or contribute to his participation in the murder[].” ¶ 139, cert.
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
We thus noted in State v. Ellison that “there is no constitutional requirement that the sentencing proceeding jury revisit the prior guilty verdict by considering evidence of ‘residual doubt.’” ¶ 82, (citing Guzek, 546 U.S. at ___, 126 S. Ct. at 1230-32), cert.
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
or is a major participant in the crime and acts with reckless indifference.” ¶ 71, (citing Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 797 (1982), and Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 157-58 (1987)), cert.
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 42 , (confirming de novo review of challenges regarding admissibility under the Confrontation Clause); ¶ 16 , (same).
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling.” ¶ 25