Cited by

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

167 citing documents.

State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(upholding stipulation in death penalty case that defendant committed a crime of violence that constituted an aggravating circumstance), , 64 n. 7, ¶ 30, , 1012 n. 7 (1998); see Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 44
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
overruled on other grounds, P.2d 1006 (1998); and Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 164, 823 P.2d at 33.
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 164, 823 P.2d at 31.
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432, 454, P.2d 1006 (1995); Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 164, 823 P.2d at 31.
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Thus, even assuming that the superior court and the State are correct that a defendant would never be entitled to have a jury instructed on armed robbery as a lesser-included offense of felony murder, , (observing that “this court has consistently held that felony murder contains no lesser included homicide offenses”) (emphasis added), , this does not mean that the two offenses are not the “same” for p
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
P.2d 1006 (1998); Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 164, 823 P.2d at 31.
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
64 n. 7, , 1012 n. 7 (1998) (allowing defendant to stipulate to prior conviction as sentencing aggravator); Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 162 , 823 P.2d at 31 .
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
64 n. 7, , 1012 n. 7 (1998), we rejected the defendant’s claim that reversal was required because the prosecutor “misled him into believing that the state would proceed on a premeditated theory as well as on
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
(refusing to find mitigation where defendant maintained only minimal contact with his child).
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
-53 , -13 (1993), , 63-64 n. 7, , 1011-12 n. 7 ¶¶ 28-30 (1998); -16 , -61 (1983); -08 , -33 (1981), disapproved on o
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
-53, -13 (1993), - 64 n.7, -12 n.7 ¶¶28-30 (1998); -16, -61 (1983); -08, -33 (1981), disapproved on oth
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
(Arizona death statute not cruel and unusual on its face).
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
See, , (“Federal cases hold that Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme, as construed by this court, does narrow the class of death eligible defendants sufficiently to comply with the Eighth Amendment.”), overruled on other grounds
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
see also State *59 v. Amaya-Ruiz, , (“[W]hen a defendant is convicted of first degree murder rather than second degree murder, any error as to instructions on lesser included offenses is necessarily harmless, because the jury has necessaril
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
(death-qualifying a jury does not violate the right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community); , (excusing jurors who disapprove of capital punishment does not violate Arizona constitutional ban against excusing jurors for their religious convictions), overruled on other grounds, , 64 n. 7, , 1012 n. 7 (1998); State v. Schaaf, 169 Ariz
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 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 l
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
The state argues, however, , to support a finding of relishing.
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
we cited article VI, section 27 of the Arizona Constitution in rejecting a challenge to a trial court’s denial of an alibi instruction.