Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Morris, 160 P.3d 203.

351 citing documents.

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
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer.’” 5 (1985).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
¶38 “Prosecutorial misconduct constitutes reversible error only if (1) misconduct exists and (2) ‘a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.’” State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 335 ¶ 46, (quoting State v. Anderson (Anderson II), ¶ 54, ).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
“A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.’” ¶ 36, ( ¶ 77, ).
State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
The appellant must show that the offending statements were “so pronounced and persistent” that they “permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial” and “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 46
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
The defendant must show that the misconduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a 9 denial of due process.” ¶ 46
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
§ 13- 751(F)(6) when the victim consciously “suffered physical pain or mental anguish during at least some portion of the crime and [] the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer.” ¶ 61
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
-37 ¶ 55, -16 (2007); Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 341-42 ¶ 50, 111 P.3d at 383-84.
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if “there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.” ¶ 77, (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
§ 13–751(F)(6), a first degree murder is aggravated when “[t]he defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.” “A finding of cruelty alone is sufficient to establish the [(F)(6)] aggravator.” ¶ 80
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
¶ 79, (finding cruelty when the state presented evidence of a struggle in addition to expert testimony that strangulation victims remain conscious and experience pain for some time).
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
“We review a ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence of corpus delicti for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 33
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
¶ 61, (holding that the (F)(6) cruelty aggravator requires 11 proof that the victim was “conscious and suffered physical pain or mental anguish during .
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
¶14 To evaluate “the propriety of a prosecutor’s arguments, we consider ‘whether the remarks called to the jurors’ attention matters that they should not consider.’” ¶ 51, ( ¶ 128, 141 ).
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A verdict will be reversed for errors in selecting the jury only if a party can “show actual prejudice, i.e., that the jurors who actually served were not fair and impartial.” ¶ 43 , see also Jury Selection Process, 220 Ariz. at 530-31 , ¶ ¶ 12-13, 207 P.3d at 783-84 , 2009 WL 786908 , at * 4, ¶¶ 12-13.
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-35, ¶¶ 37-45 , -14 (2007).
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
Consequently, “we uphold a decision if there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.” -41, ¶ 77, -20 (2007), cert.
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
.” State v. Morris, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 58