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. Hyde, 921 P.2d 655.

199 citing documents.

  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    This proof may be either by “tangible evidence or strong circumstantial inference.”
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    This proof may be either by “tangible evidence or strong circumstantial inference.”
  • Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (requiring “great deference to the trial court’s factual determination”).
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
    Although a factual finding of pecuniary gain as a motive may be based upon “tangible evidence or strong circumstantial inference,” , a finding that pecuniary gain served as a motive is essential to establishing the F.5 factor.
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
    See, e.g., Medina, 193 Ariz. at 514 ¶ 41, 975 P.2d at 104 ¶ 41 (relishing, gratuitous violence, and helplessness); , (helplessness and gratuitous violence); , (helplessness and relishing); , (helplessness and relishing); , (
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
    Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. at 208 , 928 P.2d at 632 (pecuniary gain finding upheld if strongly supported by circumstantial evidence)
  • State v. Roark 12 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Roark 12 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
    (requiring jury instructions accurately to state the law).
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    The rule puts the “burden of going forward” on a defendant who “moves to suppress evidence that the state has obtained under defined circumstances.”
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
    Such a finding “may be based on tangible evidence or strong circumstantial inference.”
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. King 984 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. King 984 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Cohen 957 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Cohen 957 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    ¶ 5 ‘We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, and we will not disturb its ruling absent clear and manifest error.” cert.
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
    See, -81 , -84 (1996)(bludgeoning continued after victims were dead with skulls shattered from repeated blows with knife); , (bruises on victim’s legs and arms, scraping or cutting injuries to neck, chest, and breast, head wound, strangulation
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
    “Whether a witness possesses sufficient qualifications to testify as an expert is a matter within the trial court’s discretion and that determination will not be upset on appeal in the absence of clear abuse.” , ( , ); , cert, denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
    we held that objections to death qualification and objections to dismissal of individual jurors for death penalty views presented two separate issues.
  • State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
    1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); , 275 n. 7, , 678 n. 7 (1996)(citing United States v. Kurt, 986 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir.1993) (trial court’s “good faith” determination reviewed de novo)).
  • 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. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
    West, 176 Ariz. at 452 , 862 P.2d at 212 .