DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lavers, 814 P.2d 333.

269 citing documents.

  • State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    In its subsequent ruling, the trial court found that the County Attorney had told the prosecutor “that the plea should be withdrawn and the matter should go to trial.” The court also found that the County Attorney’s decision “was based solely on the victim’s and her family’s objection to a non-trial disposition.” , , the trial court ruled that the offer had been withdrawn “for improper reasons” and that the withdrawal had “violated both [Espino-sa’s] due process rights and the Separation of Powe
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
    See, , (defendant cut victims several times before stabbing them, and one of the victims saw his own mother stabbed in the back prior to murder); , (defendant drove victim to desert, forced victim to lie on ground while captors debated victim’s fate)
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
    see also Trostle, 191 Ariz. at 12 , 951 P.2d at 877 .
  • State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    *375 “Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.”
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
    See Spears, 184 Ariz. at 293-94 , 908 P.2d at 1078-79 (giving “some weight” to this factor in combination with defendant’s background, love of family, employment history, and good conduct during incarceration); , (considering military service and employment history together as a mitigating circumstance); , (considering defendant’s military history, family ties, and good reputation as mitigation, but not enough to warrant leniency).
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
    We consider the “entire murder transaction and not simply the final act that killed the victim.” , .
  • Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (requirement of authentication or identification is a condition precedent to admissibility); , , cert.
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    388 n. 8, , 345 n. 8 (1991).
  • State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
    388 n. 8, , 345 n. 8 (1991).
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
    the nature of that [homicide] and the identity of its victim.’ ”
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
    1578 , 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994), , , cert.
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
    As we have repeatedly stated: “Defendant has the burden of proving the existence of mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court may take notice of evidence that tends to refute a proffered mitigating circumstance.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994