DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rossi, 741 P.2d 1223.

95 citing documents.

  • State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
    *195 § 708(G)(1), see, e.g., State v. Rossi -51 , -29 (1987), defendant has not presented sufficient evidence in this case to support such a finding.
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
    The trial court concluded that Robert “presented no evidence that the alcohol consumed by the defendant affected his state of mind.” , (finding that proof of cocaine addiction and effects of addiction supported finding of inability to conform conduct to requirements of the law).
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
    Richmond, 114 Ariz. at 197 , 560 P.2d at 52 .
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
    Stanley, 167 Ariz. at 527 , 809 P.2d at 952 ; -48 , -26 (1987).
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
    This case is in sharp contrast to State v. Rossi (Rossi II), , in which we found persuasive uncontradicted evidence that the defendant’s behavior was largely controlled by his $1000 per week cocaine addiction.
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
    Nothing in the evidence or in Spencer’s briefs on appeal indicates that his drug use significantly impaired his capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (see State v. Rossi (Rossi II), , ) or that he was impaired by drug use on the night in question.
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
    (there is no constitutional right to voir dire a trial judge before sentencing).
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    .Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (identical assertion rejected); (2) Arizona’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it excludes jury involvement in sentencing, see Fulminante, 161 Ariz. at 258 , 778 P.2d at 623 (identical assertion rejected); (3) The death sentence was improperly imposed because defendant was precluded from *646 death-qualifying the trial judge, , (identical assertion rejected); , (“Absent proof to the contrary, the trial judge in a capital case must be presumed t
  • State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
    See State v. Rossi (Rossi II), , State v. Rossi (Rossi I)
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
    3200 , 105 L.Ed.2d 708 (1989) (lack of ascertainable standards for the sentencing judge to measure the relative weights of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not make imposition of the death penalty arbitrary and irrational); , (right to voir dire trial judge concerning possible bias or prejudice is not encompassed within constitutional right to fair trial before impartial judge); , (prosecutor’s discretion to decide in which cases the death penalty will be sought does
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
    State v. Rossi (Rossi II)
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
    appeal after remand, , , cert.
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
  • Fiveash v. Superior Court of Arizona 752 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Fiveash v. Superior Court of Arizona 752 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    see also State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hanes 747 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Hanes 747 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 748 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1987
  • State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 748 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987