Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Herrera, 850 P.2d 100.

94 citing documents.

State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“If reasonable men may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” (citation omitted).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
(declining to address trial court’s exclusion of hearsay evidence when defendant did not offer it into evidence and no copy of it made part of the record); ¶ 61, (stating that appellate court needs a sufficient record “
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
Although youth “is entitled to great weight as a mitigating circumstance,” - 35 - we also consider the defendant’s maturity, judgment, intelligence, and involvement in the crime
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See State v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 394, (kidnapping); -97, -28 (1982) (first-degree murder); Dixon, 127 Ariz. at 561, 622 P.2d at 508 (theft).
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
14 , (evidence relating to identity of shooter irrelevant when defendant convicted of felony murder and acquitted of premeditated murder).
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
We first note that “jurors are presumed to follow instructions.”
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
And, because we presume the jurors followed the court’s limiting instruction, , we further presume that the foreperson wrote in the word “guilty” to complete the sentence in the verdict form because the jurors had found that appellant had not established his entrapment defense, the only issue before them.
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. LeBlanc 924 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1996
State v. LeBlanc 924 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. at 500, 826 P.2d at 797 .
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 177-78 , 800 P.2d at 1285-86 .
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
C. Although the state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, , the court is not required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
See State v. Herrera (Mickel), , (a trial court may make an Enmund finding in a felony murder case).
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
See, , Jimenez, 165 Ariz. at 459-60 , 799 P.2d at 800-01 ; -16 , -80 (1989); Mauro, 159 Ariz. at 207-08 , 766 P.2d at 80-81 ; Brookover, 124 Ariz. at 42 , 601 P.2d at 1326