Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Boggs, 185 P.3d 111.

149 citing documents.

State v. Cornman 351 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
and arguing that the information was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause even though the informant would not testify, because the information was needed to provide context for defendant’s statements.
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
¶ 38, (noting that we review legal issues de novo).
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 33-35, ¶ 70, see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9 (Confrontation Clause “does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted”).
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We will not find a statement involuntary unless there exists “both coercive police behavior and a causal relation between the coercive behavior and the defendant’s overborne will.” ¶ 44
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Determining veracity and credibility lies within the province of the jury.” ¶ 39, (citing cases).
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.’” quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51.
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
¶¶ 94-95, (affording, in context of independent review, little mitigating weight to mental illness as a mitigating factor when “no expert testified that [defendant] did not know right from wrong, and none could establish his mental state at the time of the crime”).
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
4 Because Martinez did not object to this testimony at trial, “our review is limited to fundamental error.” ¶ 38 , ( ¶ 19 , ).
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
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
¶13 Nordstrom also argues that admission of evidence about the felony murders violated due process, contending that we have held that “[e]vidence presented for rebuttal must be relevant to the mitigation proffered.” 7 ¶ 65, ¶ 51
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
We weigh mental health mitigation “in proportion to a defendant’s ability to conform or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.” State v. Boggs, 218 Ariz. 54 325, 344 ¶ 94, (quotation omitted).
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
8 ¶¶ 34-35 , (stating questions as part of an interrogation “were admissible at least for the limited purpose of showing the context of the interrogation”); -14, ¶¶ 69-70 , -89 (2006).
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
The State must prove that a confession was “freely and voluntarily made and was not the product of coercion.” ¶ 44
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-34, ¶ 31 , -20 (2008) (court engaged in fundamental error review after a defendant failed to object to challenges to admissibility based on the Confrontation Clause).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
1354 (citation omitted); ¶ 56
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
However, before Larson filed his reply brief
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
See State v. Boggs, 218 Ariz. 325, 341, ¶ 78, (affirming (F)(6) aggravator based on admissions by defendant corroborated by physical evidence).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
Finally, no reasonable jury could fail to find the motivational element because the murders involved a continuous course of criminal conduct and “it is difficult to imagine a motive for the killings unrelated to the murder of [Mata].” See id.; ¶ 81, (upholding (F)(8) aggravator where “all the murders involved a continuous course of criminal conduct”).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs, __ Ariz. __, __ ¶ 94
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
See State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz 252, 280, (“Pecuniary gain need not be the exclusive cause for a murder.”); accord State v. Boggs, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 73-74