Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ramirez, 871 P.2d 237.

231 citing documents.

Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In addition, “the trial court is presumed to know and follow the law,” and Maher has not overcome that presumption here.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
( ¶ 50 , , , , Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 57-58 , 659 P.2d at 16-17 ).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Nor did he commit them during “‘“ a relatively short period of time in what can be fairly viewed as one continuous course of criminal conduct.”’” quoting Romine v. State, 305 S.E.2d 93, 99 (Ga.
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
Instead, all homicides must take place during “one continuous course of criminal conduct.” , ( , ).
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
(presence or absence of factors); , (weight given to factors).
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(when jury appears confused as to legal issue, court has responsibility to give guidance by lucid statement of relevant legal criteria).
In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
at 504 , 826 P.2d at 801
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
*388 ¶39 While a court must consider any proffered evidence, it should not accept it as mitigating unless (1) the defendant has proven the fact or circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence, , and (2) the court has determined that it is in some way mitigating.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
“Cruelty refers to the pain and suffering that the victim experiences before death.” , , (cruelty focuses upon the victim’s suffering and mental anguish).
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Similarly, , the supreme court ap *311 plied rational basis review to legislation that regulated the right to appeal in death cases, actions undoubtedly affecting liberty interests.
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
We further note that the weight accorded such evidence is within the sentencing judge’s discretion, , and that a defendant must prove the existence of any mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
Moreover, both murders “were committed by [defendant] in a relatively short period of time in what can be fairly viewed as one continuous course of criminal conduct.”
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Thompson 924 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996