Cited by

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

497 citing documents.

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
Thus, Batson does not limit the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors because of their reservations about capital punishment.”
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
Thus, Batson does not limit the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors because of their reservations about capital 13 punishment.”
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
¶ 26 , Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hernandez 29 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hernandez 29 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
(presence or absence of factors); , (weight given to factors).
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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 v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
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
-16 , -56 (1995); , (admission of improper evidence in bench trial does not require reversal because, unless it appears otherwise, appellate court will assume trial judge only considered competent evidence).
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
290, 302, (“Nothing about a person’s views on the death penalty invokes heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
Murray, 184 Ariz. at 44 , 906 P.2d at 577 ( , ).
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
3 ¶ 22 “The decision to refuse a jury instruction is within the trial court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse it absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
“A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“[W]hen a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.”
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
See, , (“The purpose of a contemporaneous objection requirement is to allow for an immediate remedy for potentially improper or unconstitutional activities.”); , 306 n. 5, , 846 n. 5 (1995) (regarding witness testimony); , (regarding jury instruction); , (regarding admissibility of evidence).
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
¶ 36 While a party is entitled to have the court instruct the jury on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence, , a party is not entitled to an instruction when it is adequately covered by other instructions.
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Hurley 4 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Hurley 4 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. (Rudi) Apelt, , Brewer, 170 Ariz. at 505 , 826 P.2d at 802 .
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
See, , (extensive and prolonged participation discounts defendant’s young age of eighteen years and impulsivity); , (extensive criminal history and planning undermines claim of age seventeen as mitigating); , (impact of defendant’s age twenty minimized by extent and duration of defendant’s participation in murder).
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999