Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Romanosky, 782 P.2d 693.

76 citing documents.

State v. Elkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Elkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 17 (1999) (An error is harmless where the court is “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that evidence did not impact verdict.”) ().
State v. Rogel Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rogel Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
3 STATE v. PORRAS Decision of the Court (App. 1995) (citations omitted), we will neither re-weigh the evidence on appeal, nor substitute our judgement for the jury’
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
¶79 We elect to decide the cross-appeal because it “presents a question of statutory interpretation of general applicability in death penalty cases that we believe needs to be resolved.” 782 P.2d - 40 - 693, 703 (1989).
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
222 n. 5, , 698 n. 5 (1989).
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
See Fulminante, 193 Ariz. at 500 , 975 P.2d at 90 ; *581 Wood, 180 Ariz. at 63 , 881 P.2d at 1168
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
An error is harmless if the court is “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence did not impact the verdict.”
State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
¶ 8 The court of appeals believed that this court did not crystallize case law on this point until 1989
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
310 , 136 L.Ed.2d 226 (1996)
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
310 , 136 L.Ed.2d 226 (1996)
State v. Rivers 945 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Rivers 945 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“Words offered to prove the effect on the hearer are admissible when they are offered to show their effect on one whose conduct is at issue.” , , (“[I]ri some circumstances out-of-court declarations will not be excluded as hearsay when they are not.
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
Walden, 183 Ariz. at 616 , 905 P.2d at 995
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
“If, under the statutory definition, the defendant could have committed and been convicted of the crime without using or threatening violence, the prior conviction may not qualify as a statutory aggravating circumstance under § 13-703(F)(2).” State v. Romanosky, 162 *
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Authenticity may also be established by testimony regarding distinctive characteristics, including “[ajppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.” Rule 901(b)(4); , (witness’ testimony that Florida souvenir T-shirts found in defendant’s trailer on day after murder were similar to ones she had purchased on trip to Florida immediately prior to murder established sufficient foundation for admission of the T-shirt
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
§ 18-703(F)(2), the prior conviction must be for a felony which by its statutory definition involves violence or the threat of violence on another person.” , citing Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 511 , 662 P.2d at 1018 .
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993