Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 800 P.2d 1260.

414 citing documents.

State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“The trial court has considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” , 800 *
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
Cf. State v. Walden, 183 Ariz. 595, 618, (finding signs of a struggle when victim’s hands were intertwined in the electrical cord used to strangle her and blood was sprayed around the room), -78, -86 (1990) (noting as evidence supporting cruelty that “[t]he crime scene exhibited signs of a violent and bloody struggle”).
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
-78, -86 (1990) (evidence of struggle supports cruelty finding).
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
See, (noting that police requests for a suspect to tell the truth without threat or promise are not inherently coercive).
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“The trial court has considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
¶ 49, (cruelty established when assault lasted between sixty and ninety seconds and resulted in substantial blood loss); (evidence of struggle demonstrated cruelty).
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
at 371- 72, 857 P.2d at 1225-26
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(state has burden to prove every element of offense including mental state).
State v. Barr 175 P.3d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barr 175 P.3d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
The cases that the State cites in support of its proposed jury instruction regarding the especially heinous, cruel, or depraved factor are: , , Knapp
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at 601-02 , 606 P.2d at 817-18 ; , (criminal defendant may waive right to be present at presentence hearing); ¶ 3 , (criminal defendant may voluntarily waive right to be present at trial).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Kelly R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 137 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kelly R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 137 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at 180 , 95 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(stating that a trial court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 30 (1976)
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(Concluding that an "erroneous jury instruction was not harmless error because it lessened the state’s burden to prove every element of the offense,” the court reversed a manslaughter conviction because the jury instruction may have allowed defendant to be convicted without proof beyo
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
¶51 A confession may be found involuntary based on any of the following factors: “(1) impermissible police conduct, (2) coercive pressures that are not dispelled, or (3) a confession derived directly from a prior involuntary statement.” (citation omitted).
State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(reversing a manslaughter conviction for the death of an unborn child because the application of transferred intent may have allowed defendant to be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the requisite intent toward the unborn child).
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Siner 69 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Siner 69 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(reversing a manslaughter conviction for the death of an unborn child because the application of transferred intent may have allowed defendant to be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the requisite intention toward the unborn child).
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003