Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gallardo, 242 P.3d 159.

129 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
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 of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
Propriety of death sentence ¶45 We must uphold a jury’s decision that death is appropriate if any “reasonable juror could conclude that the mitigation presented was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.” ¶ 52
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
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 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
the term “calculated” was superfluous; and the trial court’s explanation of “without pretense of moral or legal justification” “makes no sense at all in conjunction with Arizona’s law.” ¶107 “We review de novo whether jury instructions adequately state the law.” ¶ 30, (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
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
¶ 11 We “will reverse a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct if (1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [the] defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 34 , ( ¶ 45 , ).
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
State v. Cagle 266 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Cagle 266 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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 with a pillowcase before shooting him).5 2.
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
We review de novo whether jury instructions 36 correctly state the law, ¶ 30, “read[ing] the jury instructions as a whole to ensure that the jury receives the information it needs to arrive at a legally correct decision,” Granville, 211 Ariz. at 471 ¶ 8, 123 P.3d at 665 ( ).