Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Salazar, 844 P.2d 566.

261 citing documents.

State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
(quoting State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 483, (Moeller, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
Rejected by Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); State v. Harrod (Harrod I), ¶ 59, State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 507
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
See Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 310, 896 P.2d at 850; (“Because defendant’s theory of the case denies all involvement in the killing, and no evidence provides a basis for a second degree murder conviction, the instruction was properly refused.”).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
(finding gratuitous violence when a fragile, partially blind 83-year-old woman was beaten and strangled so severely that she suffered a broken nose and crushed Adam’s apple).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
no basis in our cases for holding that comparative proportionality review by an appellate court is required in every case in which the death penalty is imposed and the defendant requests it.”); (rejecting proportionality review).
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
This claim has been rejected by Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); and State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 507
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
ed the jury that the (F)(6) aggravating circumstance “cannot be found to exist unless the murder is especially heinous, cruel or depraved, that is, where the circumstances of the murder raise it above the norm of other first degree murders.” Andriano claims that this instruction required the jury to engage in proportionality review
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 207 (1976)
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
(citing Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 43-44 & n.6 (1984), ), rejected this argument.
State v. Campoy 149 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Campoy 149 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 411, Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 507, 662 P.2d at 1014.
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by