Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Richmond, 886 P.2d 1329.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
See Medina, 193 Ariz. at 514 ¶ 36, 975 P.2d at 104 ( P.2d 1329 (1994), because in Richmond “there was no showing that the defendant knew or should have known the victim was dead after the first pass of the car”); (finding gratuitous violence when, after inflicting a wound to the head that wa
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
Section 13-604(W)(4) (Supp. 2007) defines “serious 4 See, n.8, n.8 (1994) (noting that the law of the case doctrine normally “prevents a court from reconsidering issues of law previously decided”), abrogated on other grounds, P.2d 1035 (1996).
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
the State cites in support of its proposed jury instruction regarding the especially heinous, cruel, or depraved factor are: , , Knapp
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
at 161-62 ¶ 106, 42 P.3d at 592-93 ; , (finding insufficient evidence of gratuitous violence when victim was hit four times by nine gunshots and record did not indicate time between gunshots or order in which they were fired); , (finding gratuitous violence not established when defendant twice drove over unconscious victim with his car)
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
A finding of mutilation requires some demonstration that the defendant acted with a “separate purpose to mutilate the corpse.” State v. Richmond (III)
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 604 , 858 P.2d at 1207 (concluding that although the “use or threats of force” may cause a lack of consent in sexual assault cases, it can also exist because the victim was deceived); , (use of prior conviction improper where the offense could have occurred "without the use or threat of violence”); and Schackart, 190 Ariz. at 246 , 947 P.2d at 323 (finding that "[s]exual assault ...
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
(Richmond III) we did not find gratuitous violence when the defendant ran over the victim twice with his car.
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
§§ 13-1406, -1401, -1304, -1301; , -79 , -35 (1994).
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
528 [ 121 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1992); , , Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 110 S.Ct.
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995