Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 800 P.2d 1260.
- State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
- State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
- State of Arizona v. Alice C. Jeffrey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- State of Arizona v. Alice C. Jeffrey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
-
State v. Jones
49 P.3d 273
Ariz. 2002
(defendant’s limited cognitive ability did not preclude knowing and intelligent waiver when defendant was read his rights, claimed to understand them, and answered anyway).
- State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-
State v. Paxson
49 P.3d 310
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“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 discretion.”
- State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
- State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
- State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
- State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
- State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
- State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
- State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
- State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
- State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
- State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
- State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- State v. Hurley 4 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-
State v. Hurley
4 P.3d 455
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 26 As to the sentencing issue, defendant contends that the trial court’s finding of cruelty was improper because the victim was rendered unconscious “almost immediately.” , (finding of cruelty requires that victim be conscious at time of offense in order to suffer pain and distress).
- State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
- State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
- State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
-
State v. Van Adams
984 P.2d 16
Ariz. 1999
Cruelty requires conclusive evidence that the victim was conscious during the infliction of violence and *421 experienced significant “uncertainty as to [her] ultimate fate.”
- State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
- State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
- State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
-
State v. Smith
974 P.2d 431
Ariz. 1999
“Cruelty is found when the ‘victim [is] conscious at the time of the offense in order to suffer pain and distress.’” , (alteration in original) ( , ).
- State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
- In Re Timothy C. 978 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
In Re Timothy C.
978 P.2d 644
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-49 , -90 (1990); Navajo County Juv.
- State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997