Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bearup, 211 P.3d 684.

131 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
¶ 16, ¶ 93, (viewing facts favorably).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Accordingly, James “bears the burden to establish that ‘(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.’” ¶ 21 , ( ¶ 21 , and citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 20 , 115 P.3d at 607 ).
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
See Garcia, 224 Ariz. at 15 ¶ 55, 226 P.3d at 384 (because the defendant was convicted under Tison, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had acted as a major participant in the crime and was recklessly indifferent to the - 8 - victim’s life); ¶ 33, (same); (Cal.
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. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
aiver of this important constitutional right, see, ¶ 34, (affirming capital sentence imposed after trial court ordered competency evaluation and found defendant knowingly and intelligently 57 waived right to present mitigation); State v. Bearup, 221 Ariz. 163, 173 n.3, (noting trial court had conducted colloquies and determined defendant had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived right to counsel and to present mitigation during penalty phase).
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
State v. Wallace 272 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2012
¶¶ 50-53, (upholding especially heinous or depraved finding when defendant cut off victim’s finger an hour after beating victim with an aluminum baseball bat, reasoning that the removal of the finger constituted either gratuitous
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
To determine whether sufficient evidence existed 10 to require a lesser-included offense instruction, [we] must examine whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” State v. Bearup, 221 Ariz. 163, 168 ¶ 23, (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
The “key to this rule is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’” ¶ 37, ( ); ¶ 23, this case, the State produced all calls taped by the detectives and disclosed a list of the phone calls they reviewed but did not preserve, and thus complied with Rule 15.1(b)(2).
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
However, Beck “does not require a trial court to instruct on a lesser offense that is unsupported by the evidence.” ¶ 29, ( ).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
§ 13-1304 so as to elevate the unlawful imprisonment to kidnapping.” ¶ 24
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
171-72 ¶¶ 3, 37- 43, 692-93 (2009) (rejecting Lacy-based argument when defendant accompanied others to commit violent crime and evidence established his role in events leading up to and following murder).
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
¶ 49, (cruelty established when assault lasted between sixty and ninety seconds and resulted in substantial blood loss); (evidence of struggle demonstrated cruelty)
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 16, (alteration in original) ( ).
State v. Latham 219 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Latham 219 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, , (victim transported in car); , (same); Styers