Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. White, 815 P.2d 869.

83 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
[defendant’s] unsuspecting wife”); 510–13 (1991) (defendant and romantic partner schemed to kill partner’s husband to collect insurance proceeds), –17 (1992).
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
¶18 Our conclusion also finds analogous support in State v. White, a capital case in which this Court held that a defendant’s incompetence during the appellate process does not violate due process and that “an appeal should proceed regardless of a defendant’s competency.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21, as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.”
State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
-15 , -84 (1991), abrogated on other grounds by Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416-17 , 844 P.2d at 583-84 .
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
Ariz. 441, 449 , (questioning jury to determine whether bias exists is permissible); , (juror questioning is permissible to determine whether their performance will be “substantially impair[ed]” by their views); Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 624 , 832 P.2d at 641 ( , ); Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 57 , 906 P.2d at 590 (death qualifying jurors to determine if they can perform their duties is permissible and does not constitute fundamental error).
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, , as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” , State v. *79 White
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
at 3056 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 ; -15 , -84 (1991).
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State does not separately prove death is appropriate
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A coconspirator’s statements are admissible “ “when it has been shown that a conspiracy exists and the defendant and the declarant are parties to the conspiracy.’ ” , cert.
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
§ 13-703(F)(5); -11 , -80 (1991), cert.
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
This rule requires the trial judge to make such factual findings in determining as a preliminary matter the admissibility of evidence:
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
-13 , -82 (1991) (affirming death sentence where pecuniary gain was only aggravator and lack of felony record was only mitigator), cert.
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
Use of drugs is a statutory mitigating circumstance only if the evidence shows that, at the time of the offense, drugs “significantly impaired defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” , cert.
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
1709 , 131 L.Ed.2d 570 (1995); , (death penalty statute is gender neutral), cert.
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
3047, 3056 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990); , cert.
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
The test is whether there was reasonable probability under such facts that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” , cert.
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993