Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garza, 163 P.3d 1006.

128 citing documents.

State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 31, (citations omitted) (defendant waives Batson challenges by failing to object at trial; (concluding that the court could not determine whether an identifiable underrepresentation is the result of systematic exclusion
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See, -17 (2007); ¶¶ 48-49, -41 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 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. Harrod (Harrod III), -79 ¶¶ 37-39, -30 (2008); ¶ 67
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
ion and felony murder [are] being submitted to the jury.” (noting that “first degree murder is only one crime” and “the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed”), aff’d, 501 U.S. 624 (1991); ¶ 46 n.11, n.11 (2007).
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Harrod (Harrod III), -79 ¶¶ 37-39, -30 (2008); ¶ 67
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
¶ 57, (noting that “jury may consider the circumstances of the crime in its evaluation of mitigation” in the penalty phase).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Harrod (Harrod III), ¶¶ 37-39, ¶ 67
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Harrod (Harrod III), ¶¶ 37-39, State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 70, ¶ 67
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
–79, ¶¶ 37–39, –30 (2008); State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 70 ¶ 67
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
In State v. Garza, we affirmed the trial court’s admission of a 911 tape during the penalty phase, noting that it was relevant because the penalty jury “may consider the circumstances of the crime in its evaluation of mitigation.” ¶ 57
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Harrod (Harrod III), -79 ¶¶ 37-39, -30 (2008); ¶ 67
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
The trial court’s decision whether to grant a mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Dann, 220 Ariz. at 363 ¶ 48, 207 P.3d at 616, as is the admission of victim impact evidence, ¶ 60
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
However, our supreme court has repeatedly reaffirmed the validity of the Portillo instruction in Arizona, see, -17 (2007), and we are not at liberty to overrule or disregard its rulings, n.1, n.1 (App. 2000).
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
But we disagree with Forte that such an error “unfairly ‘depriveLs] defendants of basic protections’ ” and is properly categorized as “structural.” n. 6 , , 1013 n. 6 (2007), , (alteration in Garza).
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
63 n. 6, ¶ 20, , 1013 n. 6 (2007).