Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rockwell, 775 P.2d 1069.

69 citing documents.

State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
conviction and must prove that the defendant is the person to whom the documents refer” unless the “defendant admits the prior conviction or the state can show ‘that its earnest and diligent attempts to procure the necessary documentation were unsuccessful for reasons beyond its control and that the evidence introduced in its stead is highly reliable’”) (citation omitted); (presentence report insufficient to establish prior conviction).
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“Usually, a stipulation waives defendant’s right to object to the evidence on appeal.”); (“The stipulation of evidence into the record .
Taraska v. Taraska Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Taraska v. Taraska Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“The stipulation of evidence into the record .
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
See Stevens, 158 Ariz. at 596 (reducing death penalty to life imprisonment where defendant, at pre-arranged drug sale with co-worker, robbed and shot co-worker’s companion); –72 (1989) (leniency warranted where defendant robbed and killed victim who had won substantial sum at casino earlier that night); 16 (1989) (death penalty reduced to life sentence for murder that occurred in course of truck-stop robbery).
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nor was it fundamental, prejudicial error for the prosecutor to ask the wife about her contact with Chavez-Tavena after the incident and before he was arrested a month later, which prompted her to volunteer in part that during the time that Chavez-Tavena eluded police, he “would call me and continued to call me and threaten.” (holding unsolicited remark that defendant “started being rough with me” did not constitute fundamental error).
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Cross-examination of a character witness about specific instances of conduct is permitted under Rule 405(a) so that the jury can evaluate whether the witness’s opinion concerning the character trait is well-founded.” -11 , -75 (1989) (holding that the prosecutor was entitled to ask defendant’s character witnesses, who attested to defendant’s untruthfulness and propensity “to fabricate stories, of criminal exploits,” whether he had boasted of two crimes that he had in fact committed); see State
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Phillips 67 P.3d 1228 Ariz. 2003
State v. Phillips 67 P.3d 1228 Ariz. 2003
(holding that if a witness was eliminated to facilitate the theft, “the murder was part and parcel of the robbery”).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
See, , , 1017 ¶ 87 (2000) (“When a robbery victim is executed to facilitate the Mller’s escape and hinder detection for the purpose of successfully procuring something of value, the pecuniary gain motive is present.”); , (even if committed after property had been taken, “the murder was part and parcel of the robbery because it resulted in eliminating the only witness to the crime.”); , (finding pecuniary gain aggravation where “the murders w
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
See, ¶87 (2000) (“When a robbery victim is executed to facilitate the killer's escape and hinder 49 detection for the purpose of successfully procuring something of value, the pecuniary gain motive is present.”); (even if committed after property had been taken, “the murder was part and parcel of the robbery because it resulted in eliminating the only witness to the crime.”); (finding pecuniary gain aggravation where “the murders
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
Fierro, 166 Ariz. at 551 , 804 P.2d at 84
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
¶ 21 , (senteneer considered prosecutor’s recommendation against death penalty as mitigating factor), -16 , -80 (1989) (in weighing mitigating factors, court considered probation officer’s presentence report recommending against death penalty).
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
However, , “[e]ven if [defendant] shot the victim after the money was taken ..., the murder was part and parcel of the robbery because it resulted in eliminating the only witness to the crime.” , (victim killed to facilitate
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
(reducing sentence to life imprisonment where pecuniary gain was sole aggravator but mitigation was great); , (where same evidence was used to support both pecuniary gain and heinous and depraved, it can be weighed only once; thus only o
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1989) (pecuniary gain factor upheld where defendant took victim’s car and left murder scene with victim’s wallet and money); , (pecuniary gain factor upheld when defendant shot victim after robbery).
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
See, , Jimenez, 165 Ariz. at 459-60 , 799 P.2d at 800-01 ; -16 , -80 (1989); Mauro, 159 Ariz. at 207-08 , 766 P.2d at 80-81 ; Brookover, 124 Ariz. at 42 , 601 P.2d at 1326
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
See, *607 -72 , -02 (1989); -16 , -80 (1989)
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993