Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Milke, 865 P.2d 779.

69 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Adriel Guevara-Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Adriel Guevara-Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
“[E]xcusing jurors is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” and we will not set aside a court’s decision whether to strike a juror for cause “absent clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion.”
State v. Brown 556 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brown 556 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
waives the right to raise the issue on appeal.’” (quoting Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 154); (same); (same); (similar); (“Defendant did not object to the instruction at trial.
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
§ 21-211 ”4 “[E]xcusing jurors is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” and we will not set aside a court’s decision as to whether to strike a juror for cause “absent clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion.”
Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(noting that reviewing courts should not address issues that are unnecessary to disposition of appeal).
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“The matter of excusing jurors is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Lavelle Bridges v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ariz. 2022
Lavelle Bridges v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ariz. 2022
(stating that reviewing courts should not address issues that are unnecessary to disposition of an appeal).
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶48 Hernandez argues the “court erred by removing Juror #5 for cause rather than declaring a mistrial or charging the jury to return to deliberations.”5 “The matter of excusing jurors is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed on appeal.” (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
The use of that relationship in partial support of a finding of heinousness and depravity is constitutionally permissible.” (alterations omitted) (); (“Although there was no legal ‘parent/child’ relationship, defendant and victim did share a special relationship in that defendant was the child’s full-time caregiver for several months before he killed him.”).
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶19 stating: 4 This statutory section was later re-designated as A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
Leteve argues that the jury should have been instructed that it also had to find that the murder was senseless and the victim helpless.
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State *280 v. Milke (Milke I)
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
¶69 Hargrave argues that the State did not establish the pecuniary gain aggravator because conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence.
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(declining to address moot cross-appeal issue).
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
aved factor are: , , Knapp
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
“The trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility and accuracy, as well as draw inferences, weigh, and balance.” , , (“When mitigating evidence is conflicting and involves considerations of credibility, we give great deference to the trial court’s conclusions.”).
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
We have heretofore ruled: (1) that pecuniary gain, by definition, sufficiently narrows 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 prepon
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
159 , 130 L.Ed.2d 97 (1994); , cert.
State v. Taylor 931 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Taylor 931 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
435 , 130 L.Ed.2d 347 (1994); , cert.