Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Walton, 769 P.2d 1017.

173 citing documents.

Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
[Dr. Solomon] in is because these two [defendants] named her as a non-party at fault.” ¶ 54 Courts give counsel “ ‘wide latitude’ in closing arguments to ‘comment on the evidence and argue all reasonable inferences’ from it.” ¶ 180 , ( , ( , *304 (1989))).
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
State v. Patterson 56 P.3d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Patterson 56 P.3d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(finding no error in reopening after closing arguments but prior to jury deliberations); , -61 (1962) (same).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
It must be the intent preceding the mortal blow, not “what surprisingly transpired” afterward, that “guides our analysis.”
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
See, , (defendant cut victims several times before stabbing them, and one of the victims saw his own mother stabbed in the back prior to murder); , (defendant drove victim to desert, forced victim to lie on ground while captors debated victim’s fate); , (armed defendants broke into victims’ home, victims listened while defendant shot family members and waited for their turn).
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
-09 , -32 (1996) (financial gain as impetus for homicide); Gonzales, 181 Ariz. at 513 , 892 P.2d at 849 ; , (“[T]he purpose of the killing must be to further the defendant’s motive of pecuniary gain....
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
There is no evidence that the jury was misled, and “[m]ere speculation that the jury was confused is insufficient to establish actual jury confusion.” Gallegos, 178 Ariz. at 11 , 870 P.2d at 1107 ( , ).
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
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
(fact that several months had passed between alleged promise and defendant’s statement contradicted reliance); -80 , -26 (1989), aff'd 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
See, -32 , -50 (1996) (age sixteen not mitigating factor); , (age twenty not mitigating factor); -61 , -06 (1985) (age nineteen not mitigating factor).
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
-80 , -26 (1989), aff'd on other grounds, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-81 , -27 (1989) (objections to the impanelling of the jury are waived unless made during voir dire), aff'd, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); -92 , -38 (1989), aff'd, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
(holding that defendant “cannot object to the [jury] panel once he has approved it”) (citations omitted), affd, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
-80 , -26 (1989), aff'd, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
aff'd 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
aff'd, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
It is obvious that she suffered great physical and emotional pain, and thus the murder was “especially cruel.” , (cruelty can consist of physical abuse or mental anguish, including victim’s uncertainty as to her ultimate fate), aff'd, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
a. Cruelty Cruelty focuses on the victim’s state of mind and exists when the defendant “inflicts mental anguish or physical abuse before the victim’s death.”
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
aff'd, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
3047, 3056-58 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990)
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996