Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harrod, 183 P.3d 519.

74 citing documents.

State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Harrod (Harrod III), ¶¶ 37-39, State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 70, ¶ 67
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
–79, ¶¶ 37–39, –30 (2008); State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 70 ¶ 67
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
§ 13-751(G) does not permit residual doubt evidence during the penalty phase, but stated that the phrase “any of the 9 circumstances of the offense” in § 13-751(G) refers “to such factors, among others, as [] how a defendant committed first degree murder.” ¶ 43
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
Because the statutory language is mandatory, ¶ 28, the superior court erred in not ordering an evaluation, ¶ 15, (finding error in failure to order statutorily required mental retardation prescreening).
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
See State v. Harrod (Harrod III), 218 Ariz. 268, 281 ¶ 46, ¶ 67, see also Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517, 523 (2006) (“We can find nothing in the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments that provides a capital defendant a right to introduce new
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
¶66 Indeed, P.3d 519 (2008), rejected the argument that Speer now raises.
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
makes residual doubt evidence irrelevant to capital resentencing proceedings.” State v. Harrod (Harrod III), ¶ 44
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
S. § 13-703.01(L) (prohibiting a “jury first impaneled for the aggravation phase” from “retrying] the issue of the defendant’s guilt”); , (affirming trial court’s preclusion of residual doubt evidence during penalty phase of sentencing).
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
§ 13-703.01(L) (prohibiting a “jury first impaneled for the aggravation phase” from “retry[ing] the issue of the defendant’s guilt”); (affirming trial court’s preclusion of residual doubt evidence during penalty phase of sentencing).
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
¶ 28, (declining to decide whether 7 “§ 13-703.03 .
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod (Harrod III), ___, ¶¶ 20-21