Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. West, 862 P.2d 192.

167 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
93) (concluding trial court did not err in finding “especially heinous or depraved” where defendant “laughed as 48 STATE OF ARIZONA V. EDWARD LITTLETON MCCAULEY Opinion of the Court [he] came back to the car after having murdered” the victims and “also bragged to his girlfriend that he had been in a ‘good fight’”); (affirming especially heinous finding where defendant “told people that he ‘beat the fuck out of some old man’ and bragged about cuts and bruises on his hand coming from beating up ‘t
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
le seeking to accomplish one of several enumerated felonies, each of which requires a showing of intent and/or knowledge for conviction, be subject to the same criminal charges and punishment as a person who causes the death of another person with premeditation.”); (“Arizona’s felony murder rule is not unconstitutional.”); see also State v. (Thomas) West, (“The felony-murder rule, designed as it is to protect human life, represents sound public policy, is reasonably related to the end sought to
State v. Aquino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Aquino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
overruled on other grounds, ¶ 30 n.7 (1998); see also Organ, 225 Ariz. at 48, ¶ 24.
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶7 Generally, “[i]ssues concerning the suppression of evidence which were not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal.” (“In fact-intensive inquiries on motions to suppress, th[is] court is not obliged to consider new theories .
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(defendant is bound by his counsel’s tactical or strategic decisions to waive even constitutional rights), ¶ 29 (App. 2017) (a 6 ARPOP 40 provides: (a) A plaintiff may ask for
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(prosecutor’s closing argument that characterized defense questions as a “ploy,” “outrageous,” and “improper” was “well within the wide latitude afforded” during closing argument) n. 7, ¶ 30 (1998); (
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Indeed, our supreme court has held that a prosecutor arguing certain questions by defense counsel were “‘a defense ploy,’ ‘improper,’ and ‘outrageous’” is “well within the latitude afforded both parties in closing argument.” n.7, n.7 (1998); –72, –80 (1990) (finding that prosecutor’s arguments that defense counsel “blind-sided witnesses,” created a “smoke s
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(overruled on other grounds by State v. Rodriguez, 192 16 STATE v. CRAFT Decision of the Court Ariz. 58, 64, ¶ 30, n.7
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 162, 823 P.2d at 31.
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 162, 823 P.2d at 31.
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
9 9 Although the record suggests that Patterson was not well- to-do at the time of the murder, neither the State nor Patterson presented any evidence that he was actually impoverished.
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
See State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432, 455
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
See State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432, 437, (defendant bragging to multiple people about murdering older man and describing how he killed him was relishing), P.2d 1006 (1998).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
However, in a criminal ease, “[a] pretrial motion in limine is merely a convenient substitute for evidentiary objections at trial.” , , 64 n. 7, , 1012 n. 7 (1998).
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Sansing, 200 Ariz. 36 347, 361, ¶ 46
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
Sansing, 200 Ariz. at 361, ¶ 46, 26 P.3d at 1132
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 162, 823 P.2d at 31.
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
at 433-34 ¶ 18, 207 P.3d at 686-87 ( P.2d 1006 (1998)).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
See supra ¶ 12; ¶ 35, (relishing demonstrated by defendant “laughing out loud,” joking, and looking forward to media coverage); (bragging about beating victim shows that defendant relished his crime), overruled on other grounds, n.7, ¶ 30, n.7 (1998); State v. Runningeagle
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009