Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Greenway, 823 P.2d 22.

169 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. cooper/bassett Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. cooper/bassett Ariz. 2023
Under Arizona law “courts must consider not only a juvenile’s age but also the ‘level of maturity, judgment and involvement in the crime.’” Valencia, 241 Ariz. at 210–11 ¶ 23 (Bolick, J., concurring) (); see also Clabourne, 194 Ariz. at 386 ¶ 28 (“In addition to chronological age, this circumstance requires that we consider a defendant’s: (1) level of intelligence, (2) maturity, (3) participation in the murder, and (4) criminal history and past experience with law enforcement.”).
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
i. Constitutionality of Arizona’s Death Penalty Statutes ¶174 We have repeatedly rejected the argument “that our legislature has not narrowed the class of persons eligible for the death penalty.” see Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. at 551 ¶ 27.
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
(limiting closing argument to the evidence presented at trial); (“The trial court’s consideration 8 STATE V. JOHNSON Opinion of the Court of other similarly situated defendants is inapposite to this defendant’s ‘character or record’, and does not show any of the circumsta
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
But we rejected a and more recently in Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. at 549–52 ¶¶ 14–29.
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
¶ 24 (2017) (“An aggravating circumstance satisfies this narrowing requirement so long as it applies only to a subclass of murders.”); –64 (1991).
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
¶15 We rejected a P.2d 22 (1991).
State of Arizona v. valencia/healer 386 P.3d 392 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Gregory Nidez Valencia, Joey Lee Healer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Valencia 370 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Gregory Nidez Valencia, Joey Lee Healer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
And courts have long understood that the sentencing considerations for juveniles are markedly different from those for adults, noting in particular a sentencing court should consider a juvenile defendant’s age as well as his or her “level of maturity, judgment and involvement in the crime.” see also Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 823-24, 833-34 (1988).
State v. Valencia 370 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
And courts have long understood that the sentencing considerations for juveniles are markedly different from those for adults, noting in particular a sentencing court should consider a juvenile defendant’s age as well as his or her “level of maturity, judgment and involvement in the crime.” , see also Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 823-24, 833-34 , 108 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
¶17 Moreover, the admission of hearsay statements does not violate the Due Process Clause if the defendant “receive[s] notice of any hearsay statements to be introduced by the State in rebuttal to mitigation and ha[s] ‘an opportunity to either explain or deny them.’” ¶ 49, ( ).
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
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
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
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
19 victim; and (5) senseless crime.” State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 166, (-53, -12 (1983)).
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
¶ 90, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S. Ct. 2654 (2002)(mem.)
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
State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 164
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
and have ‘an opportunity to either explain or deny them.’” Hampton, 213 Ariz. at 179 ¶ 49, 140 P.3d at 962 ( ).
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
Rejected by State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 164
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
This Court rejected this argument in State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 164
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008