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. Milke, 865 P.2d 779.

69 citing documents.

  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    159 , 130 L.Ed.2d 97 (1994); , cert.
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
    Although the Gretzler factors are not absolutely exclusive, , they provide a consistent and rationally renewable standard for the otherwise vague (F)(6) “especially heinous, cruel or depraved” factor, thus ensuring the continuing constitutionality of our death penalty statute and facilitating our independent review.
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
    1404 , 113 L.Ed.2d 460 (1991) ; -25 , -86 (1993) (defendant’s murder of her child unnecessary to achieve goal of freeing her from parental burdens; other options existed), cert.
  • State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
    (noting that reviewing courts should not address issues that are unnecessary to disposition of an appeal).
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
    See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 609 , 858 P.2d at 1212 ; , (mitigating evidence de minimis); , (same); , (additional mitigating circumstance of “minimal significance”).
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
    The first two challenges to Arizona’s
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
    Because we are affirming the sentences