Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Murray, 906 P.2d 542.

324 citing documents.

State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
Gonzales, 181 Ariz. at 515 , 892 P.2d at 851 (court required to do no more than consider all evidence offered in mitigation).
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
307 ¶ 44, , 362 ¶ 44 (2000) ( , , ).
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
1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995); Martinez, 196 Ariz. at 456, ¶ 16, 999 P.2d at 800; , cert.
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
Character or personality disorders usually are not sufficient to find that a defendant was “significantly impaired.”
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(finding the question to be “whether the prosecutor’s actions were reasonably likely to have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying him a fair trial”).
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See Taliaferro, 186 Ariz. at 223 , 921 P.2d at 23 (denial of notice of peremptory change of judge must be challenged by special action); , (denial of motion to remand to grand jury must be challenged by special action); , (denial of *303 dismissal for violation of speedy trial rights must be challenged by special action if violation purely technical and nonprejud
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 1 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 1 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Wagner 982 P.2d 270 Ariz. 1999
State v. Wagner 982 P.2d 270 Ariz. 1999
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Id.; , Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
(California defendant was in possession of victim's truck and title thereto, transferred while defendant was in Phoenix, and shell casing found consistent with victim's wound was fired from defendant’s gun); , (defendant was in vicinity of murder site, was apprehended with evidence from the scene, and blood and footprints matched).
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 wrongfu
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
wound to the head, Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 178 , 800 P.2d at 1286 ; a stabbing in'the throat following a shooting, , two blows to the head with a bat followed by smothering and strangulation, -89 , -18 (1996); numerous gunshot wounds to the head from different weapons, , continued bludgeoning with a tire jack, , and bruises, scraping or cutting injuries, a wound to the head, deep slashes to the throat, and strangulation
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Id.; , (noting that, absent separate showing of prejudice or discrimination, failure to follow statutory procedures for jury selection is considered harmless).
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
See, , (expert’s failure to follow FBI procedures in preserving and analyzing footprint evidence goes to weight rather than admissibility); State v. Moore, 268 Mont.
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Rule 12.9, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; , cert.
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
“Mere proof of consumption of alcohol is insufficient for an instruction; there must be evidence that alcohol could have had an effect on defendant so as to negate an element of the crime.”
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
Moreover, “[t]he especially heinous, cruel or depraved circumstance is phrased in the disjunctive, so if any one of the three factors is found, the circumstance is satisfied.”
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 1222 Ariz. 1997
cert, denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct.
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
1088 , 137 *552 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997)
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997