Cited by

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

128 citing documents.

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
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
ich a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence,” State v. Ring (Ring III), ¶ 45, (internal quotation marks omitted), and “therefore is limited to such circumstances as denial of counsel or a biased [trier or fact],” n.6 ¶ 20, n.6 (2007).2 If an appellate court finds structural error, reversal is mandated regardless of 2 In Ring III, we id
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, 2
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
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
to impose a death sentence”; “[i]f the state bears the burden of proof, the issue shall be determined in the aggravation phase”); , (“Arizona law specifically requires the trier of fact to make Enmund/Tison findings in the aggravation phase.”).
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
to impose a death sentence”; “[i]f the state bears the burden of proof, the issue shall be determined in the aggravation phase”); (“Arizona law specifically requires the trier of fact to make Enmund/Tison findings in the aggravation phase.”).
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
23 “The admission of victim impact evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 60
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
“The admission of victim impact evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State v. 17 Garza, ¶ 60
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. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 73 ¶ 84
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
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).