Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Spears, 908 P.2d 1062.

324 citing documents.

State v. Smith 90 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Smith 90 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“‘The police have probable cause to arrest when reasonably trustworthy information and circumstances would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe an offense has been committed by the suspect.’”) (emphasis added)
State v. Madrid 85 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Madrid 85 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
For example, , our supreme court upheld an order requiring a defendant to pay travel expenses and probate attorney’s fees incurred by the victim’s family during an emergency trip to Arizona following her murder, concluding that such expenses were “proper restitutionary items.” See also In re Ryan A
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” , (citation omitted).
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. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
To prove (F)(5), the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that pecuniary gain was “a motive, cause or impetus for the murder and not merely the result of the murder.” , 433 ¶ 32, , 41 ¶ 32 (1999) ( , ).
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
We have previously explained our approach to this issue, holding that when a jury verdict “finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is supported by very strong evidence, the trial court properly refused to find the nonstatutory mitigating circumstance of residual doubt.” , cert.
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
To establish the F.5 factor, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that pecuniary gain was “a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely the result of the murder.” , 433 ¶ 32, , 41 ¶ 32 (1999) ( , ), cert.
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(in reviewing denial of motion to suppress, appellate court may only consider evidence presented to trial court during suppression hearing); , 286 n. 1, , 1182 n. 1 (1989) (same).
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
To establish (F)(5), “pecuniary gain [must be] a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely the result of the murder.”
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. DeCamp 3 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. DeCamp 3 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
This factor exists when pecuniary gain is “a motive, cause or impetus for the murder and not merely the result of the murder.” , , cert.
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998