Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Landrigan, 859 P.2d 111.
- State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
- 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
Rule 20(a) requires the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal “if there is *438 no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz 1, 4, cert.
- State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
- State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
- State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
-
State v. Hinchey
890 P.2d 602
Ariz. 1995
(sentencer’s discretion sufficiently channeled because statute narrowly defines class of death-eligible defendants), cert.
- State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
-
State v. King
883 P.2d 1024
Ariz. 1994
(equal protection not violated because jury determines aggravating factors in non-capital cases whereas judge makes determination in capital cases).
- State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-
State v. Fodor
880 P.2d 662
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Rule 20(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal “if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” , , cert.
- State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
- State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
-
State v. West
862 P.2d 192
Ariz. 1993
We agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s
- State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993