Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bolton, 896 P.2d 830.

497 citing documents.

State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 651-52 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
“If the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the victim was conscious during the infliction of violence, the court cannot find that the killing was especially cruel.”
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
This court “will not consider an evidentiary theory when it is advanced for the first time on appeal.” , ( , ).
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
(citations omitted); -49 , -66 (1992).
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
we held that, based on the jury instructions, the jurors had found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim.
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
Ariz. Const, art. II, § 2.1(A); , see also State ex rel.
State v. Osorio 931 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Thornton 929 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1996
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Thornton 929 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1996
Thornton has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his “capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.” , A.R.S.
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
(holding that “[a]rgument must be in the body of the brief’ and that defendant may not invoke page limits as an excuse for insufficient argument on appellate review).
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
(defining fundamental error as “error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial”).
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
To presume prejudice, Jackson must show pretrial publicity “so unfair, so prejudicial, and so pervasive that the [court] cannot give credibility to the juror’s answers during voir dire.” State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz 290, 300
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
To presume prejudice, Miles must show pretrial publicity “so unfair, so prejudicial, and so pervasive that the [court] cannot give credibility to the juror’s answers during voir dire.” State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz 290, 300
State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 656-57 , 832 P.2d at 673-74
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
(age undermined as mitigating factor when defendant had been incarcerated as a juvenile, had prior felony conviction, and was awaiting trial for another crime); Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 169 , 823 P.2d at 36 (age of 19 not sufficiently mitigating to call for leniency of defendant found wit
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
‘When addressing the issue of young age, we look at the defendant’s level of maturity, judgment, past experience, and involvement in the crime.”