Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hyde, 921 P.2d 655.

199 citing documents.

State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
Pecuniary gain motivates a crime “if the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.” ¶ 11, ( 921 P.2d - 30 - 655, 683 (1996)).
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(specific prior act evidence admissible to rebut defendant's claim of lack of motive); Connor, 215 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 35 , 161 P.3d at 606 (defense counsel's own questioning of witness opened door to permit State to expound on prior bad acts).
State v. Starr 213 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Starr 213 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
See State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz 252, 280, (“Pecuniary gain need not be the exclusive cause for a murder.”); accord State v. Boggs, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 73-74
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
This aggravating factor is present “if the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.”
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
“This factor is satisfied only ‘if the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.’” ¶ 7, ( ).
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Germaine about Gay’s in which our supreme court held that expert psychological testimony is “not appropriate .
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Right to counsel ¶25 A trial court’s decision to admit a defendant’s statement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8, based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, State v. Hyde, 11
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
¶12 Moreover, “a presumption or inference does not shift the burden of proof, but only aids [a party] in maintaining its burden.” (stating that the existence of a presumption of sanity does not alter the State’s burden); see also State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 266, (distinguishing between the burden of going forward, which “requires the party that bears it to produce sufficient preliminary evidence,” and the burden of pers
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(citations omitted); see also 2 McCormick on Evidence, § 336.
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
A jury may find the existence of the pecuniary gain aggravating factor “if the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.”
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
“A murder is senseless when it is unnecessary for the defendant to achieve his objective.” ¶ 10 , ( , ).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
This factor is satisfied only “if the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.”
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
This factor is satisfied only “if the expectation of pecuniary gain is a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely a result of the murder.” State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 280
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(party who bears burden of going forward must “produce sufficient preliminary evidence before the party with the b urden of persuasion must proc eed with its evidence”); (defendant who establishes that evidenc
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(admission of expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Dean 76 P.3d 429 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dean 76 P.3d 429 Ariz. 2003
In reviewing an order involving a motion to suppress, we review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the order, and will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent “clear and manifest error.”
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
The finding may be based on “tangible evidence or strong circumstantial inference.” , ( , ).
State v. Crowley 41 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Crowley 41 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002