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. Willoughby, 892 P.2d 1319.

82 citing documents.

  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
    We have therefore held that the state must prove that the defendant had the “intent to promote the offense of murder and an agreement with another that one will do the actual killing.” P.2d 1 (1983).
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (“Although religious beliefs may motivate one’s opinion about the death penalty, the beliefs themselves are not the basis for disqualification.”), cert.
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
    In Arizona, “[disqualification when a juror states his inability to be impartial is not only permissible but imperative.” , ( , ); , (excusing venire person who could not convict due to religious opposition to the death penalty does not violate state constitutional provision against disqualification based on religious beliefs).
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
    (court must consider all mitigating aspects of a defendant’s character and circumstances).
  • State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
    (finding a “great number” of past good deeds to have mitigating value).
  • State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    the court stated that, “Premeditation being ‘part of the corpus delicti’ of premeditated first-degree murder, [State v.] Poland, 132 Ariz. [269] at 276, 645 P.2d [784] at 791 [ (1982) ], and the verdict having established that actual premeditation occurred, there was no question but
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
    (no violation of Sixth Amendment right to fair and impartial jury where prospective jurors were questioned regarding their views on death penalty and two were excused after they said they could not convict at all, knowing that judge might order death sentence), cert, denied, — U.S. -
  • State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
    The quality and strength of each must also be considered.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
    (discounting significant mitigating evidence based on factual severity of a single aggravator).