Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brewer, 826 P.2d 783.

115 citing documents.

State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
(personality disorder not mitigating without proof that it controlled defendant’s conduct or so impaired his mental capacity as to warrant leniency).
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
787 , 133 L.Ed.2d 737 (1996) ( , ); A.R.S.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
Stokley, 182 Ariz. at 516 , 898 P.2d at 465 ( , , 797 (1992)); A.R.S.
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
Although prosecutorial discretion to seek the death penalty extends into the sentencing phase, it “ends in a capital case with the prosecutor’s decision to present or ignore evidence of aggravation.” , , cert.
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 67 , 906 P.2d at 600 , , , cert.
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
Moreover, “‘the trial judge in a capital case must be presumed to be able to focus on the relevant sentencing factors and to set aside the irrelevant, the inflammatory, and the emotional factors.’” , , cert.
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
Ross, 180 Ariz. at 606 , 886 P.2d at 1362 ; , (“Factors 4 and 5 do not warrant a finding of heinousness or depravity unless accompanied by additional factors.”).
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
(“Without such evidence there was no proof *312 of any aggravating circumstances, and the sentence of death was not proper.”); , (judge decides propriety of death sentence only where prosecution has “placed [it] in issue during sentencing”), cert.
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
15 Generally, “a mere character or personality disorder alone is insufficient to constitute a mitigating circumstance.” See, , (citing cases).
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993