Cited by

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

177 citing documents.

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
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
For these same reasons, the Majors confession did not meet the “inherent tendency”
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
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
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
¶ 35 The “heinous or depraved” prong of (F)(6) focuses on the “defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense, as reflected by his words and acts.”
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
(hereinafter Fulminante I).
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
(holding that admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative to other legitimately admitted evidence that establishes a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
3 The trial court granted the state’s motion, , which provides that “before a defendant may 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.” The court ruled, however, that Woot
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
Vague grounds of suspicion are not sufficient.” , aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
(citations omitted), aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
(a trial court’s finding of any of the especially cruel, heinous, or depraved elements of A.R.S.
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
(approving relishing factor where defendant bragged about raping and murdering child victim), aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
-47 , -12 (1988), aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
1058 , 122 L.Ed.2d 364 (1993); broad prosecutorial discretion to seek the death penalty violates due process, , sentencing by a judge violates the Sixth Amendment, , aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
(rejecting this claim); see also Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 , 875 n. 13, 103 S.Ct.
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
aff'd, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993