Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ross, 886 P.2d 1354.

79 citing documents.

State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“The interrogation environment does not suggest police intimidation or coercion.”).
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
s criminal acts are constitutionally permissible, ¶ 17 (2003); (11) that the death penalty statute does not unconstitutionally fail to require cumulative consideration of multiple mitigating factors or specific findings as to each, Sansing, 200 Ariz. at 361 ¶ 46; and (12) that international standards do not compel the death penalty’s abolition
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
(“A murder is senseless when it is unnecessary to allow the defendant to complete his objective.”).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Randles 334 P.3d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Randles 334 P.3d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶10 This change in the law is applicable to all such sentences, and accordingly, applies retroactively to Randles’ sentence in this case.2 See, (holding that defendant’s challenge to execution by lethal gas as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment was rendered moot by statutory change permitting option of execution by lethal injection).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
Trial courts presume confessions to be involuntary, but we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 23
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
Distinguished State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
See, ¶ 57, (defining heinous and depraved); ¶ 34, (defining relishing); State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 606, (defining witness elimination); -53, This Court also rejected Anderson’s challenge that the decision in Walton would not save a facially vague F.6 aggravator when a jury, as opposed to a judge, performs the in
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
6 This standard applies whether the Court is reviewing the admissibility based on a violation of defendant’s right to counsel under Miranda, -5, ¶¶ 7-8, -77 (2002), or determining whether the confession was voluntary
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Because the determination of voluntariness is “highly fact-intensive, a court’s finding mil not be disturbed absent clear and manifest error.”
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
Fierro, 166 Ariz. at 551 , 804 P.2d at 84
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
-06 , -62 (1994) (discussing factors that support an (F)(6) finding); -53 , -12 (1983).
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
“A murder is senseless if it is unnecessary for the defendant to complete his objective.” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. at 281 , 921 P.2d at 684 ( , ).
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Thornton 929 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1996