Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McGill, 140 P.3d 930.

147 citing documents.

State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
See, e.g., Moore, 222 Ariz. at 22-23 ¶ 134, 213 P.3d at 171-72; Velazquez, 216 Ariz. at 315 ¶ 74, 166 P.3d at 106; ¶ 67, ¶ 58
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 154 ¶ 30
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
We review alleged constitutional violations de novo, State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 159 ¶ 53, and when possible, construe statutes to uphold their constitutionality, ¶ 38
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
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
Appellant’s family support and impact on his family ¶134 “The existence of family ties is a mitigating factor.” ¶ 67
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
B. Speer’s Knowledge ¶55 In evaluating the (F)(3) knowledge requirement, P.3d 930 (2006), is instructive.
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
¶ 40, (stating that “the judge’s analysis [of evidence under A.R.S.
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004); ¶ 51, (noting that the Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial hearsay used to establish an aggravating circumstance).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
¶44 As Martinez recognized, we rejected a ¶¶ 54-56, cert.
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings at the penalty phase for abuse of discretion, State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 156 ¶ 40, but review constitutional issues de novo, id.
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
159, ¶¶ 40, 53, 942 (2006), cert.
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 159 ¶ 53, cert.
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
We review evidentiary rulings of the trial court for abuse of discretion, ¶ 40, cert.
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
When reviewing a verdict for sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict and will affirm if “a rational trier of fact could have convicted the defendant of the crime in question.”
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
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. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006