Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tucker, 160 P.3d 177.

158 citing documents.

State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
–53 ¶¶ 109–14, –95, supplemented by P.3d 1219 (2005) (observing that the (F)(6) aggravator was sufficiently narrowed by jury instructions that “gave substance to the terms ‘cruel’ and ‘heinous or depraved’ in accordance with our case law narrowing and defining those terms”); ¶ 28, (“The (F)(6) aggravator is facially vague but may be remedied with appropriate narrowing instructions, whether a judge or a jury makes the sentencing determination.”).
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
316 ¶ 66, ("We have recognized structural error in only a few instances,” such as "when trial judge biased; defendant denied counsel, access to counsel, self-representation, and public trial; reasonable doubt instructions defective; and jurors excluded because of race or views on death penal
State v. Rustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 6–10, (noting that trial court’s informing defendant about the consequences of testifying does not interfere with defendant’s right to testify).
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
to original 1977 r.; ¶ 52
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Krieger v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Krieger v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hill 336 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hill 336 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Joseph, 230 Ariz. at 298 ¶ 8, 283 P.3d at 29; ¶ 26, ¶ 62
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶ 8; ¶¶ 19-20, Rogovich, 188 Ariz. at 42, 932 P.2d at 798.
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 12, 14, -38 (2009); ¶¶ 84-85, ¶¶ 65-69, -96 (2007).1 Although novel assignments of instruction-related error can sometimes rise to this level, we will grant appellate relief only in those rare cases where a defendant has made “[a] particular showing of prejudice.” (App. 2010
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
.” State v. Tucker, 215 25 STATE V. MEDINA Opinion of the Court Ariz. 298, 323 ¶ 118
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 v. Tucker (Tucker II), ¶ 27
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
[and] do not violate the Eighth Amendment.” (citing Lynn v. Reinstein, 205 Ariz. 186, 191 ¶ 17, )); see also State v. Tucker (Tucker II), ¶ 92, (“Evidence about the victim and the effect of the crime on the victim’s family is [also] admissible during the penalty phase as rebuttal to the defendant’s mitigation evidence.”).
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
¶40 “A defendant’s relationship with his or her family and friends may be a mitigating circumstance, yet the Court has often found that this circumstance should be given little weight.” ¶ 116, 201 (2007).
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
¶ 46, 314-15 ¶ 58, 193-94 (2007).
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
at 229 ¶ 26, 159 P.3d at 539; see - 3 - ¶ 62
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Tucker (“Tucker II”), P.3d 177 (2007).
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
“As long as the prior conviction is entered before the sentencing hearing, the conviction may support the (F)(1) aggravator even if it is committed before, contemporaneously with, or after the capital homicide.” ¶ 98, see also State v. Gretzler (Gretzler II), n.2, n.2 (1983).
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
may be remedied with appropriate narrowing instructions.”) (internal quotation omitted); ¶ 28, Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 655 (1990), overruled 48 on other grounds by Ring, 536 U.S. 584.
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
¶70 A mistrial is required when victim impact testimony is so “unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair.” ¶ 92
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Tucker (Tucker II)
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011