Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schurz, 859 P.2d 156.

193 citing documents.

State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Orendain 916 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Orendain 916 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
110 , 130 L.Ed.2d 57 (1994) (a character or personality disorder is generally not sufficient for mitigation); , cert.
State v. Terrazas 930 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Terrazas 930 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
our supreme court likewise identified but declined to decide the question.
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
1058 , 122 L.Ed.2d 364 (1993); , 51-52 nn.
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
403, 17A AR.S., if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” , , cert.
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
-52 , -62 (for evidence of a separate robbery to be admissible to prove murder, evidence must be sufficient to find that a robbery took place and that defendant committed it), cert.
State v. Levato 905 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Levato 905 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” , , cert.
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
“[I]t is not mere disparity between the two sentences that is significant, but, rather, unexplained disparity.” , cert.
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. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
*499 In order to withstand a motion for a judgment of acquittal, “the state must produce enough evidence that a reasonable person could conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” , ( , ), cert.
State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lee v. Hodge 882 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1994
Lee v. Hodge 882 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1994
"[N]ot all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial____ [E]vidence which is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.”
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
ide that a jury may consider voluntary intoxication only when determining whether a defendant acted with the culpable mental *12 state of “intentionally or with the intent to.” 2 And, previous decisions by this court illustrate that the law in Arizona is clear: “the jury may not consider voluntary intoxication with respect to the defendant’s culpable mental state [of knowingly].” , (emphasis added)
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
State v. Fisher 859 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1993
State v. Fisher 859 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1993
However, case law since his decision may suggest a different conclusion with respect to the guilt phase, because we recently held that intent is not a necessary element of first degree murder where the mental state is alleged alternatively as “intentionally or knowingly.” -55 , -165 (1993).
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993