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. King, 883 P.2d 1024.

197 citing documents.

  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    The doctrine of law of the case does not “prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s prior, nonfinal rulings.”
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    ¶ 62 The Arizona Supreme Court recognizes two forms of prosecutorial vouching: “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” -77 , -33 (1994) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
    Although a defendant must prove that his ability to conform to the law was significantly impaired, -89 , -45 (1994), the impairment need not have been so severe that it constitutes a complete defense to the crime.
  • Davis v. Davis 985 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Davis v. Davis 985 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
    tion that intoxication existed to establish (G)(1) mitigator); -95 , -28 (1996) (self-reported use of cocaine on day of murder not enough to establish (G)(1) mitigator); Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 313 , 896 P.2d at 853 (insufficient evidence to establish mental illness, despite two psychiatric experts’ testimony on defendant’s behalf); , (nothing in the record showed intoxication or level of intoxication).
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
    See Rossi, 154 Ariz. at 249 , 741 P.2d at 1227
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
    We have held that “[o]nly in limited circumstances will a finding of senselessness and helplessness, without more, support a finding of heinousness and depravity.” , ( , cert.
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    ) the very fact that he has a bad memory.’ ” , cert.
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
    (“defendant’s wiping down of security guard’s holster demonstrates defendant knew enough to try to cover up his acts”), cert.
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
    528 [ 121 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1992); , , Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 110 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
    Murray, 184 Ariz. at 37-38 , 906 P.2d at 570-71 , , cert.
  • State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Carey 920 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Carey 920 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
    Barreras, 181 Ariz. at 522 , 892 P.2d at 858 ; , (“[O]nly under limited circumstances will the senselessness of a murder or the helplessness of the victim ...
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
    Barreras, 181 Ariz. at 522 , 892 P.2d at 858 ; , (“[0]nly under limited circumstances will the senselessness of a murder or helplessness of the victim ...
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
    (citing Gillies and noting that witness elimination is considered "when refuting a defendant’s arguments that a murder was not senseless because it was committed to avoid prosecution.”).
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994