Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Vickers, 768 P.2d 1177.

70 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
“grabbed his phone and said he was calling the bank and police.” No matter how heated the argument, “[w]ords alone are not adequate provocation to justify reducing an intentional killing to manslaughter.” ().
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 24 (2012); Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 174; -43 (1989); (“The general rule is that negligent homicide is a lesser-included offense of manslaughter and the only difference between the offenses is an accused’s mental state at the time of the incident.”).
State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Criticized State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 1, n.1 (2003) (“We are not bound by the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of what the Constitution requires.”); n.2 (1989) (declining to follow a Ninth Circuit decision which held Arizona’s death penalty statute unconstitutional because that decision rested on “grounds on which different courts may reasonably hold differing views of what the Constitution requires”); ¶ 4, n.2, 318–19, ¶
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
(“The court must instruct the jury on every lesser-included offense to the one charged if the evidence supports the giving of the instruction.”).
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
(“The court must instruct the jury on every lesser-included offense to the one charged if the evidence supports the giving of the instruction.”).
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
and if the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.” (citing Ariz. R. Evid.
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(App. 5 2007); n.2, n.2 (1989) (Arizona courts not bound by Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of what United States Constitution requires).
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
21 McGill, 213 Ariz. at 156-57, ¶ 40, 140 P.3d at 939-40, and unfair prejudice, (dealing with Arizona Rule of Evidence 403, which is fundamentally the same as the relevance assessment under A.R.S.
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
at ¶ 64, and the jury “‘necessarily rejected all other lesser-included offenses.’” ( ).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
Because the jury had the option of these immediately-lesser included offenses, but nonetheless found the defendant guilty of the highest offense, it “necessarily rejected all other lesser-included offenses.” , ( , ).
State v. Montano 77 P.3d 1246 Ariz. 2003
Criticized State v. Montano 77 P.3d 1246 Ariz. 2003
n.2, n.2 (1989)(declining to follow a Ninth Circuit decision which held Arizona’s death penalty statute unconstitutional because that decision rested on “grounds on which different courts may reasonably hold different views of what the Constitution requires”)
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
See, , (setting fire to an inmate in his cell, thus endangering nearby inmates trapped in them cells); , (shooting victims in a crowded bar); , (setting fire to the v
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
116, 122 , (same); , (same); , (same), , (“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); State v. Vickers (Vickers II), , (same); , (same); State v. Vickers (Vickers I), , (same).
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
( , ); , (any error in failing to give manslaughter instruction cured by first degree murder conviction while rejecting second degree); , (“[Fjinding defendant guilty of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Criticized State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
543 n. 2, , 1188 n. 2 (1989) (declining to follow a Ninth Circuit opinion holding Arizona’s death penalty statute unconstitutional because that opinion rested on “grounds on which different courts may reasonably hold different views of what the Constitution requires”).
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
(“When insanity is at issue, evidence of prior bad acts is admissible if relevant, Ariz.R.Evid.
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
528 , 121 L.Ed.2d 411 (1992); , 543 n. 2, , 1188 n. 2 (1989).
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
See Rule 23.3, Ariz.R.Crim.P.; , cert.
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
See, e.g., Walton, 159 Ariz. at 589 , 769 P.2d at 1035 ; , cert.