Cited by

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

169 citing documents.

State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
to exist unless the murder is especially heinous, cruel or depraved, that is, where the circumstances of the murder raise it above the norm of other first degree murders.” Andriano claims that this instruction required the jury to engage in proportionality review
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
McGill, 213 Ariz. at 159 ¶ 51, 140 P.3d at 942; n.1, n.1 (1991).
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
McGill, 213 Ariz. at 159, ¶ 51, 140 P.3d at 942; n.1, n.1 (1991).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
161 n. 1, , 28 n. 1 (1991).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
llegations but on mere speculation, suspicion, apprehension, or 17 imagination.” 5 ¶38 “[T]here is no per se disqualification of a sentencing trial judge who presides over a codefendant’s trial.”
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
¶20 which adopted Justice Moeller’s concurrence in State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 173
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
(finding that Arizona statute sufficiently narrows the class of defendants who are death eligible).
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
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
(finding pecuniary gain motive for murder of robbery victim where defendant committed home invasion robbery without attempting to cover his face despite knowing victims were inside).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(finding pecuniary gain motive for murder of robbery victim where defendant committed home invasion robbery without attempting to cover his face despite knowing victims were inside).
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
See Greene, 192 Ariz. at 438-39 , 967 P.2d at 113-14 ; , 928 * Hyde, 186 Ariz. at 280 , 921 P.2d at 683 (“Pecuniary gain need not be the exclusive cause for a murder” in order to satisfy (F)(5)); , (motive of witness elimination did not foreclose the possibility of finding an additional motive to commit murder for pecuniary gain).
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999