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. Rudi Apelt, 861 P.2d 654.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “A defendant has a due process right to such assistance upon a similar showing of necessity.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (“Mere undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial are not enough.”) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
    Michael Apelt, 176 Ariz. at 357, 861 P.2d at 642.
  • Jones v. Sterling 110 P.3d 1271 Ariz. 2005
  • Jones v. Sterling 110 P.3d 1271 Ariz. 2005
    § 13- 4013(B)] is not to be construed as mandating, in every case, an appointment of investigators or experts, nor the expenditure of 17 public money for their use, merely upon application.”); State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 369, 375, (“Mere undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial are not enough.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
    In State v. Trostle, we said that “[c]ruelty exists if the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and Defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” , (citing State v. (Rudi) Apelt, , , ).
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
    An identifiable mental disease or psychological defect must exist to prove “significant impairment.” , State v. Apelt (Rudi), , Brewer, 170 Ariz. at 505 , 826 P.2d at 802 .
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
    State v. (Rudi) Apelt, , Brewer, 170 Ariz. at 505 , 826 P.2d at 802 .
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
    the class of death eligible defendants and focuses directly on the class, West, 176 Ariz. at 449 , 862 P.2d at 209 ; (2) that the statute does not preclude a jury finding of aggravating factors, , (3) that the statute need not require the sentencing court to specify which mitigators were proved and which were not, State v. (Rudi) Apelt, , (4) that the statutory requirement that mitigators be proved by a preponderance does not preclude consideration of all mitigating factors, -27 , -94 (1996); (5
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
    (claim that defendant was tipping his hand by having to request expert assistance not cognizable prejudice), cert.
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
    See State v. Apelt (Rudi), , cert.
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
    3047, 3054-55 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990); , cert.
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
    See State v. Apelt (Rudi), , (defendant failed to describe the evidence he believed was available), cert.
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993