Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stanley, 809 P.2d 944.

110 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
See Milke, 177 Ariz. at 126 (“A mother’s conspiracy to murder her own four-year-old child and the resultant premeditated murder of that child is the ultimate perversion of the parent/child relationship.”); (“When a father kills his own child, his actions cannot be characterized as sensible, nor can his state of mind be considered other than perverted.
State v. Tanner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Tanner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(noting that being told one is not under arrest weighs against a finding of custody); (same).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
6 STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court would a reasonable person feel deprived of his freedom of action?” (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
10 STATE V. PAYNE Opinion of the Court ¶39 Payne was not in custody when he attempted to invoke his right to counsel because, other than the presence of police, he had no reason to “feel deprived of his freedom of action.” -06, -93 (1985) (inherently coercive nature of speaking to police is insufficient).
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(ruling on motion to suppress not disturbed on appeal absent “clear and manifest error”); see also State v. Jones, 203 * (equating clear-error standard with abuse-of-discretion standard).
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
11 -12, -67 (1984)); (killing five-year-old daughter “for no reason other than to eliminate her as a witness” to her mother’s murder supports finding of depravity); (recognizing witness elimination as supporting finding of heinousness or dep
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
tion regarding the especially heinous, cruel, or depraved factor are: , , Knapp
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
custody: (1) the presence of objective indicia of arrest, (2) the interrogation site, (3) the length and form of the 12 interrogation, and (4) the focus of the investigation on the accused if conveyed by word or conduct to the accused.4 See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323-25, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 1529-30 (1994)
State v. Levens 152 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Levens 152 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
at 164, 107 S. Ct. at 520; (“critical element” in voluntariness analysis is “whether police conduct constituted overreaching”).
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
(police telling defendant about discovering bloody items and probable death of family was not functional equivalent of questioning).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
So, also, , , (older children killed by mother’s domestic partner).
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
While we view this evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling, , we review de novo the court’s legal conclusions.
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
Although Cañez was using crack cocaine the night of the murder, there was no evidence of his degree of intoxication nor “that it overwhelmed his ability to control his physical behavior.” -31 , -56 (1991) (upholding finding of no (G)(1) -51 , -29 (1987), in which there was uncontroverted expert testimony that defendant’s addiction was so great that his “whole personality began to evolve around t
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
Although Cañez was using crack cocaine the night of the murder, there was no evidence of his degree of intoxication nor “that it overwhelmed his ability to control his physical behavior.” -31, -56 (1991) (upholding finding of no (G)(1) -51, -29 (1987), in which there was uncontroverted expert 58 testimony that defendant’s addiction was so great that his
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
(rejecting claim that defendant’s contact with small child was mitigating factor where contact was minimal); -30 , (trial court found defendant an “adequate family man” as one of five mitigating factors; not sufficient to justify leniency).
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999