Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bocharski, 189 P.3d 403.

163 citing documents.

State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 75, (“Absent any finding of misconduct, there can be no cumulative effect of misconduct sufficient to permeate the entire atmosphere of the trial with unfairness.”); 11 STATE v. ALONZO Dec
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
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
–86 ¶¶ 33, 38, –13 (2008).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
We review the trial court’s decision to refuse a requested instruction for an abuse of discretion, Johnson, 212 Ariz. at 431 ¶ 15, 133 P.3d at 741, and review de novo whether the trial instructions as a whole correctly state the law, ¶ 47
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
But this Court has repeatedly held that the state proves gratuitous violence by showing that (1) the defendant inflicted “violence beyond that necessary to kill,” and (2) “the defendant continued to inflict violence after he knew or should have known that a fatal action had occurred.” State v. Bocharski (Bocharski II), ¶¶ 85, 87, (emphasis modified from original); see also State v. Wallace (Wallace IV), ¶ 10, (to same effect).
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
¶26 The trial court instructed the jury that a defendant inflicts gratuitous violence by “us[ing] violence clearly beyond what was necessary to kill the victim.” As VanWinkle correctly 12 points out, ¶ 87, because it omits reference to the defendant’s state of mind.
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
¶¶ 38- 41, (applying harmless error analysis to admission of hearsay).
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
¶¶ 27-28, 33-35, -53, 1053-54 (2012); ¶¶ 85-91, -22 (2008); see also infra n.8 (discussing standards set forth in Bocharski).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
¶55 P.3d 403 (2008), to support his claim that the jury abused its discretion.
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 60 , (noting that law of the ease rule applies to rulings “in the same case, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested” (emphasis added)); ¶ 10 , (rejecting app
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
¶ 85, see also Wallace III, 219 Ariz. at 6 ¶ 28, 191 P.3d at 169 (noting that Bocharski “clarif[ied] the principles governing” gratuitous violence).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Bocharski (Bocharski II), ¶¶ 47-50
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 60 , Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
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
–88, ¶¶ 47–50, –15 (2008).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
-88 24 ¶¶ 47-50, -15 (2008).
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bocharski states that the “trial judge appropriately instructed the jurors that they could consider the victim impact statement only to rebut the mitigation evidence.” ¶ 53
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
However, “[a]bsent any finding of misconduct, there can be no cumulative effect of misconduct sufficient to permeate the entire atmosphere of the trial with unfairness.” ¶ 75
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
Five factors are generally relevant in determining “whether a killing was 7 especially heinous or depraved: (1) relishing the murder, (2) infliction of gratuitous violence, (3) needless mutilation of the victim, (4) senselessness of the crime, and (5) helplessness of the victim.” ¶ 83, (citing State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 51-52, -11 (1983)).
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bocharski (Bocharski II), -88 ¶¶ 47-50, -15 (2008).
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
5 See Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 546-47 ¶¶ 20-21, 65 P.3d at 927-28; ¶¶ 82-83, (no ex post facto violation for failure to require special verdicts or interrogatories); ¶¶ 76-78, (same).
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009