Cited by

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

324 citing documents.

State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
¶14 The analysis of pretrial publicity involves two inquiries: “(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?” 566, 1169 (1993).
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The cases that the State cites in support of its proposed jury instruction regarding the especially heinous, cruel, or depraved factor are: , , Knapp, , ; , , , , , 86
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
To obtain a conviction for felony murder on the theory of accomplice liability, therefore, “[t]he state need only prove that defendant, either as a principal or as an accomplice, committed or attempted to commit robbery and that someone was killed in the course of and in furtherance of the robbery.” , (citing in part A.R.S.
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
-24, -57 (1995) (noting that “[g]ranting excuses based on the application of neutral criteria to prospective jurors’ individual situations” is a proper exercise of the jury commissioner’s discretion (
Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See, , , 671 P.2d *483 399, 403 (1983)
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
To establish premeditation, “the state must prove that the defendant acted with either the intent or knowledge that he would kill his victim and that such intent or knowledge preceded the killing by a length of time permitting reflection.”
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 35 “A Willits instruction is appropriate when the state destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
‘When a defendant challenges a denial of severance on appeal, he ‘must demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.’ ” , ( , ).
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(defining premeditation as a “length of time permitting reflection”); , (same); , (same); , (same); Sta
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(declining to reexamine the continued validity of Cruz in light of Purkett); , (assuming, without deciding, that Cruz was not diluted by Purkett).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
(declining to reexamine the continued validity 11 of Cruz in light of Purkett); (assuming, without deciding, that Cruz was not diluted by Purkett).
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cecil 36 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001