Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gulbrandson, 906 P.2d 579.

249 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46, 72
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
(finding that evidence of a previous assault was admissible to show motive and intent for subsequent murder); -600, -92 As explained in ¶ 20, in 1997 this court adopted Rule 404(c).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
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
Despite those apparent discrepancies in our supreme court’s post-1978 case law on whether premeditation necessarily requires some reflection, the court consistently has retained the notion that premeditation can occur as quickly as “successive thoughts.” See Zmich; Vickers II; , , Kreps, 146 Ariz. at 449 , 706 P.2d at 1216 ; Hutton, 143 Ariz. at 389 , 694 P.2d at 219 .
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 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
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In later cases, the court continued to regard premeditation, as defined in the statute, as having the potential of being “as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind____”
State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
(cruelty alone is sufficient to support a finding of F.6); , (heinousness or depravity alone is sufficient to support a F.6 finding).
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
See also Mann, 188 Ariz. at 228 , 934 P.2d at 792
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
(death-qualifying a jury does not violate the right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community); , (excusing jurors who disapprove of capital punishment does not violate Arizona constitutional ban again
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999