DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stuard, 863 P.2d 881.

166 citing documents.

  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
  • State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
    § 13-703(E); , (“One mitigating circumstance, for example may be ‘sufficiently substantial’ to outweigh two aggravating factors.”) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
  • State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
  • Distinguished State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
    As such, , in which we reduced the defendant’s sentences from death to life *22 imprisonment upon determining that the trial judge failed to give evidence of defendant’s impairment the mitigating weight it deserved.
  • 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
    Notwithstanding the failure to give a cautionary instruction, we find no error that goes to the “ ‘foundation of the case or that which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and [an] error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have had a fair trial.’” , ( , ).