Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Marlow, 786 P.2d 395.

52 citing documents.

State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 1 (2018); ("Failure to make a timely objection to the introduction of evidence waives all except fundamental error.").
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
See Stevens, 158 Ariz. at 596 (reducing death penalty to life imprisonment where defendant, at pre-arranged drug sale with co-worker, robbed and shot co-worker’s companion); –72 (1989) (leniency warranted where defendant robbed and killed victim who had won substantial sum at casino earlier that night); 16 (1989) (death penalty reduced to life sentence for murder that occurred in course of truck-stop robbery).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
¶60 - 25 - P.2d 395 (1989).
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
ctiveness at trial 6 because the “standard for determining whether counsel was reasonably effective is ‘an objective’ standard which we feel can best be developed by someone other than the person responsible for the conduct.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)); see also State v. Suarez, 137 Ariz. 368, 380, (noting that “it is improper for appellate counsel to argue his own ineffectiveness at trial because, as a matter of policy, it is difficult for
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
("[I]t is *263 inappropriate for counsel to claim that his or her own conduct of the trial or the conduct of co-counsel was not reasonably effective.").
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
(reducing sentence to life imprisonment where pecuniary gain was sole aggravator but mitigation was great); , (where same evidence was used to support both pecuniary gain and heinous and depraved, it can be weighed only once; thus only one aggravating factor could be weighed against substantial mitigating evidence, making life imprisonment the appropriate sentence).
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
The only case in which the court accepted a finding of depravity based solely on a finding that the murder was motivated by a
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
(evidence that defendant killed to avoid detection used to support aggravating factors of murder for pecuniary gain and murder committed in heinous, cruel, or depraved manner); , (defendant’s prior conviction used to support ag
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
Henry complains of the disparity between his sentence and Foote’s. The same judge sentenced both.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
See, *607 -72 , -02 (1989); -16 , -80 (1989)
State v. Lang 862 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lang 862 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
See, , (death sentence set aside for defendant convicted on accomplice theory when possible principal sentenced to four years); , (Cameron, J., concurring) (apparent disparity justified by defendant’s greater participation in the crim
State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Appellant argues that, although the trial court may use the same evidence to sup *359 port a finding of two aggravating circumstances, when balancing the factors the court may only weigh the evidence once
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
Compare cases *62 in which pecuniary gain was found: , (defendant kidnapped man who had been flashing money in Las Vegas, robbed him shortly after driving into Arizona, took him out of the car and kicked him over a cliff, then hit him on the head with a boulder); , (defendant robbed gas station and
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
See, , (motive for the killing was to eliminate the victim as witness to the robbery); Correll, 148 Ariz. at 481 , 715 P.2d at 734 (“only reasonably ascertainable motive for the murders was to cold-bloodedly eliminate any and all witnesses to the robbery”)
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990