Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152.

901 citing documents.

State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
¶121 In our independent review, we find that the evidence here establishes that the victims were conscious when they were bound, -05, -08 (1993) (noting that “[t]he fact that her hands were bound indicates that she was conscious and tied-up to prevent struggling”), and aware of each other’s suffering.
Snyder v. Donato 118 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶22 After reviewing the specific facts of this case, we conclude that Molina was not prejudiced by the trial court’s (noting that fundamental error review is “fact intensive”).
Snyder v. Donato 118 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(DNA sample matching meets Frye test for admissibility); , (statistical formulas utilized to calculate likelihood ratios used to interpret mixed DNA samples meets Frye test for admissibility); United States v. Ewell, 252 F.Supp.2d 10
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
at trial, we review the claim only for fundamental error.”); , (evaluating errors raised below under harmless error standard when objection was raised).
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
-47, -62 (1997); -87, -70 (1987); see also Moody, 192 Ariz. at 508- 09, ¶ 21, 968 P.2d at 581-82.
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
858 P.2d, 1152, 1191 (1993).
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
In such cases, we have upheld the sentence of death because, in such cases, “[t]here is simply nothing to weigh or balance----” , , (finding remand unnecessary, citing Bible, when one aggravator set aside but mitigating evidence is de minimis); , (holding that where no new eviden
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” ¶ 21 , ( , ).
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Hampton 92 P.3d 871 Ariz. 2004
State v. Hampton 92 P.3d 871 Ariz. 2004
State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
Nevertheless, an indigent defendant is not “entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.” Moody, 192 Ariz. at 507, ¶ 11, 968 P.2d at 580 ( ).
In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
“Error is harmless if the reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” State v. Davolt, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 39, (“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”).
State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
“Fundamental error is ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ”
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
( ¶ 44, -64, -67 (1993); ); see also Blakley, 204 Ariz. at ___, ¶ 15, 65 P.3d at 82.
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
(stating that in capital eases we must “continue to take[] the extra step — indeed walk the extra mile — to ensure fairness and accuracy”).
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
(discussing harmless error).
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
1827, 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)
State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
464 ¶ 47, (Berch, J., dissenting); , cert.
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003