Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wood, 881 P.2d 1158.

119 citing documents.

State v. Estrada-Resendiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Estrada-Resendiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 60, 906 P.2d at 593; (“Defendant’s prior physical abuse of and threats against [victim] were relevant to show his state of mind and thus were properly admitted under Rule 404(b).”); (“We have long held that where premeditation [along with mali
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
To the contrary, in denying Jones’s PCR, the trial court specifically found that “defense counsel was prepared for trial, filed pre-trial motions, cross-examined the State’s witnesses, and advocated strongly on behalf of the Defendant.” (noting that trial courts are in the best position to address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel “[b]ecause they are fact-intensive and often involve matters of trial tactics and strategy”).
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
6, 65 P.3d at 427 n.6 (emphasis added); ¶ 10, (“Any agreement with another to kill a third person constitutes premeditation, the mental state that exists under Arizona law whenever the intention to kill precedes the killing by a length of time to permit reflection.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); (“The disputed trial issues were Defendant’s motive and mental state — whether Defendant acted with premeditation or as a result of a sudden impulse.”).
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
Id.; (evidence of prior physical abuse and threats was admissible to show motive and intent when defense was lack of motive to kill and impulsivity); -56, -37 (1985) (alleged feud with victim was proper to prove retaliation motive); Stat
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(evidence of previous quarrels between victim and defendant admissible and probative of motive); , (same).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
§ 13-105.9(b) (defining knowingly)
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
§ 13- 703.F.3 and correctly stated that the standard of inquiry for the F.3 aggravator is whether, during the course of the killing, “the defendant knowingly engaged in conduct that created a real and substantial likelihood that a specific third person might suffer fatal injury.”
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Bass, 198 Ariz. at 580, ¶ 36 , 12 P.3d at 805
State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
he was going to have to withdraw the plea agreement.” ¶ 4 In its subsequent ruling, the trial court found that the County Attorney had told the prosecutor “that the plea should be withdrawn and the matter should go to trial.” The court also found that the County Attorney’s decision “was based solely on the victim’s and her family’s objection to a non-trial disposition.” , , the trial court ruled that the offer had been withdrawn “for improper reasons” and that the withdrawal had “violated both [
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(victim’s statements regarding fear of defendant and desire to end relationship with him “were not offered to prove any fact.
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996