Cited by

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

261 citing documents.

State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
¶20 which adopted Justice Moeller’s concurrence in State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 173
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
¶ 14 ( ) (alteration in original) (emphasis added).
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
Rejected by Harrod, 200 Ariz. at 320, ¶ 65, 26 P.3d at 503
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
Hoskins, 199 Ariz. at 146 ¶ 82, 14 P.3d at 1016 ( , ).
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
tantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.” 5 ¶11 A court is required to refuse an instruction that does not correctly state the law, P.2d 1103 (App. 1993), and need not give “additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions [given] in defendant’s language.”
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
caused a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.” 5 ¶ 11 A court is required to refuse an instruction that does not correctly state the law, , and need not give “additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions [given] in defendant’s language.”
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(running from scene and discarding shoes); , (running from the scene of a crime); , (attempting to elude police in a high speed chase); State v. Ramirez, 142 Ariz.
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 111 S. Ct. 2491, 115 L. Ed. 2d 555 (1991); P.2d 566 (1992).
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
“[W]hen a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.”
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
see also Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 [, 96 S.Ct.
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
See Harrod, 200 Ariz. at 320 ¶ 65, 26 P.3d at 503 ¶ 65
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
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
2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
Rejected by Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
(proportionality review not constitutionally required).
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
*320 ¶ 56 , the court rejected Harrod’s argument that his sentence was disproportionate.
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
(finding that death-qualification questioning does not constitute error, “fundamental or otherwise”); , (finding that the death-qualification issue had been waived, but “there is, in any event, no error, fundamental or otherwise”); , (impartial jury requirement is fulfilled when conscientious jurors are selected, quoting Martine
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
As to the constitutional claims, we have rejected these before: 1) arbitrariness of the death penalty, , cert.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Cutright 2 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Cutright 2 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Each of these acts when committed by a criminal suspect has been adjudged to manifest a suspect’s consciousness of guilt, which in turn “gives rise to an inference of actual guilt.” , (flight and concealment of self); , (flight); , (flight and concealment of evidence).
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999