Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stokley, 898 P.2d 454.

97 citing documents.

State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
§ 13 — 703(G)(1) mitigating factor because, although “significant impairment” usually requires the existence of a mental disease or defect, -22 , -71 (1995), lack of mental disease or defect does not preclude a(G)(l) finding.
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
(finding that death-qualification questioning does not constitute error, “fundamental or otherwise”); , (finding that the death-qualification issue had been waived, but “there is, in any event, no error, fundamental or otherw
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. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
-45 , -61 (1996) (discounting an expert’s report of intoxication because it was based solely on the defendant’s self-reporting); , (rejecting historical substance abuse as a mitigating factor because evidence of the abuse was self-reported and uncorroborated); -21 , -70 (1995) (discounting an expert’s opinion that the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed the crimes was diminished because it was based entirely on the defendant’s self-reported alcoho
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
Recently, this court declared that admissibility of photographs at trial will be determined under a three-part inquiry in which a court examines the relevance of the photograph, the “tendency [of the photograph] to incite or inflame the jury,” and the “probative value versus potential to cause unfair prejudice.” , ( , cert.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
cert, denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
3047, 3057 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990); , cert, denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct.
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miller 921 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
“There is a two-step inquiry for pretrial publicity: (1) did the publicity pervade the court proceedings to the extent that prejudice can be presumed?; if not, then (2) did defendant show actual prejudice among members of the jury?” , cert.
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
“There is a two-step inquiry for pretrial publicity: (1) did the publicity pervade the court proceedings to the extent that prejudice can be presumed?; if not, then (2) did defendant show actual prejudice among *16 members of the jury?” , cert.
State v. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996
State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
§ 13-703(G)(1), a defendant must prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that his capacity to appreciate the wrongfidness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.” , cert.
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
§ 13-703(C) (stating that in the sentencing hearing, the court shall disclose to defendant all material contained in presentence report)
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
2347 , 85 L.Ed.2d 864 (1985); -25 , -74 (1995) (rejecting good character as a mitigating factor where the state offered evidence in rebuttal).