Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Herrera, Jr., 859 P.2d 131.

48 citing documents.

State v. Royalty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Royalty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
s not unconstitutional for the Arizona Legislature to mandate that an individual who causes the death of another while seeking to accomplish one of several enumerated felonies, each of which requires a showing of intent and/or knowledge for conviction, be subject to the same criminal charges and punishment as a person who causes the death of another person with premeditation.”); (“Arizona’s felony murder rule is not unconstitutional.”); see also State v. (Thomas) West, (“The felony-murder rule,
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(citing Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83).
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(defendant “clearly interfered” with a governmental function when he grabbed and wrestled a uniformed deputy).
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
(affirming a death sentence for a defendant convicted of felony murder).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
(finding victim endured physical pain when he lay on the ground with a gash in his head for at least eighteen seconds and possibly as long as two to three minutes before being killed).
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Sansing, 77 P.3d at 34 (several minutes necessary for victim to lose enough blood to die separately established physical pain component of cruelty factor); (suffering from eighteen seconds to two or three minutes supported finding of cruelty).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
¶ 12, 236 P.3d at 1182 (finding sufficient evidence to support especial cruelty finding when drowning victim conscious for “thirty seconds to two minutes”); ¶ 45, (two to three minutes); (“18 seconds to two or three minutes”).
State v. Cabanas-Salgado 92 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Cabanas-Salgado 92 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(1993); -86 , -09 (1984).
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“A person commits felony murder when, ‘acting either alone or with one or more other persons, such person commits or attempts to commit [armed robbery], and in the course of and in furtherance of such offense or immediate flight from such offense, such person or another person causes the death of any person.’ ” , (citing Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13~1105(A)(2)).
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
1199 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1102 (2000); , , State v. Rossi
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
P. 11.3; , (using “reasonable grounds” test to decide whether hearing may help determine defendant’s competence to stand trial); , (same); Martin, 102 Ariz. at 146 , 426 P.2d at 643 (using “reasonable grounds” test to decide whether hearing may help determine defendant’s competence to waive counsel).
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
A death is “in furtherance” when it results “from any action taken to facilitate the accomplishment of the [predicate] felony.” , , cert.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. at 455 , 657 P.2d at 868 ; , cert.
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
West, 176 Ariz. at 451 , 862 P.2d at 211 (criminal history and experience); Runningeagle, 176 Ariz. at 66 , 859 P.2d at 176 (maturity and intelligence); , cert.
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
Defendant also had substantial recall of the events, 2 , cert.
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Cf. State v. Herrera, Jr. I, , Cook, 170 Ariz. at 64 , 821 P.2d at 755 .
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
See State v. Herrera, Jr. I, , filed today.