Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fulminante, 778 P.2d 602.

177 citing documents.

State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. *418 237, 245-46, -11 (1988) (harmless error when inadmissible evidence cumulative to properly admitted evidence).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
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
This is so because the death penalty is only to be imposed when “the crime [which] was committed raises it above the norm of first degree murders, or the background of the defendant places the defendant above the norm of first degree murderers.”
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
We rejected this argument in State v. 42 Fulminante
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
(holding that shifting the burden of proof on mitigation to the defendant is not unconstitutional).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
and Carreon, 210 Ariz. at 76 ¶ 122, 107 P.3d at 922 (restating holding in Fulminante).
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
We rejected that argument in State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 258
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Phillips 67 P.3d 1228 Ariz. 2003
State v. Phillips 67 P.3d 1228 Ariz. 2003
(holding that the error is harmless if the court can determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that error did not affect the verdict).
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 24 , our supreme court held that, before a defendant could “introduce evidence that another person may have committed the crime, the defendant must show that the evidence has an inherent tendency to connect such other person with the actual commission of the crime.” In Gibson , that court c
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
aff'd by Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 [, 111 S.Ct.
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
¶ 65 The state contends that the ruling was correct because 1) the court did not keep out all evidence pertaining to Fred Blakley-only that relating to his history of aberrant sexual behavior and cruelty to animals; and 2) even if all evidence had been excluded
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
(“Before a defendant may introduce .
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Id.; -43 , -08 (1988) (discussing Mathis and holding that a prison inmate is not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda unless his freedom of movement is further diminished at the time of questioning, thereby creating the coercive atmosphere that triggers Miranda’s protections).
State v. Gibson 44 P.3d 1001 Ariz. 2002
State v. Gibson 44 P.3d 1001 Ariz. 2002
Discussion ¶9 The court of appeals used an “inherent tendency” test, P.2d 602 (1988).