Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McCray, 183 P.3d 503.

50 citing documents.

State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 8 (2008); (“The ultimate decision of whether sufficient foundation has been laid is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”).
Jewish Community v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Jewish Community v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(allegation of dangerousness “adds to the underlying offense an element that subjects the defendant to increased penalties.”).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
¶¶ 31–33 (2008) (finding consciousness where the expert concluded, based on the nature of the victim’s injuries and condition of the apartment, that a struggle probably occurred).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8 (2008) (“A trial court’s conclusion that evidence has an adequate foundation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”).
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
is what [the] proponent claims [it is].’” ¶ 9 (2008) (quoting Arizona Rule of Evidence 901(a)).
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-57, ¶¶ 8-15, -08 (2008).
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
An allegation of dangerousness essentially “adds to the underlying offense an element that subjects the defendant to increased penalties.” State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, ¶ 19
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. McCray, 11 STATE v. TRENT CHRISTOPHER BENSON Opinion of the Court ¶ 31
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
“The entire murder transaction, not just the final act, may be considered.” State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 259 ¶¶ 31, 33
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
See, ¶ 60, State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 261 ¶ 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
24 ¶¶ 32-33, (finding mental anguish under similar facts); - 66 ¶¶ 17-19, -65 (2010) (finding mental anguish when the defendant bound the victim and covered his head wit
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
-59 ¶ 26 n.3, -10 (2008); ¶¶ 42-43, Tucker, 215 Ariz. at 310-11 ¶¶ 30, 33, 160 P.3d at 189-90.
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
“The entire murder transaction, not just the final act, may be considered.” ¶ 31
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
See State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 258-59 ¶¶ 25-26 & n.3, -10 & n.3 (2008); Velazquez, 216 Ariz. at 308 ¶¶ 28-29, 166 P.3d at 99; -90 ¶¶ 42-45, -57 (2005); Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 353 ¶ 114 & n.19, 111 P.3d at 395 & n.19.
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
As this Court has clarified, “if [an] offense could have been committed without the use or threat of violence, the prior conviction does not qualify as an (F)(2) aggravator.” ¶ 17
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009