Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Roscoe, 910 P.2d 635.

101 citing documents.

State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
12 -93, -44 (1996) (admitting evidence of prior sexual encounter with one fourteen-year-old girl and lewd statements made to other young girls in case charging child molestation, kidnapping, and murder of a seven- year-old girl); -2
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
¶ 61 The first factor, that a defendant relishes the murder, “refers to the defendant’s actions or words that show debasement or perversion.”
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors 70 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors 70 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
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. 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. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
404(b) (West Supp.1998); , Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 61 , 906 P.2d at 594 ; Williams, 182 Ariz. at 552 , 898 P.2d at 501
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, , as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” , State v. *79 White
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
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
¶ 34 “Relishing” refers to words or actions “that show debasement or perversion.”
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
(citing Murray, 184 Ariz. at 28 , 906 P.2d at 561 ), cert.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
(holding that trial court’s failure sua sponte to give limiting instruction was not fundamental error), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
However, these factors absent additional aggravation, are usually insufficient alone to establish heinousness or depravity.”
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
(stating that the four factors are “[f]our rules of evidence [that] protect defendants from the admission of unfairly prejudicial other acts ____”), cert.
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
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. Gallegos 916 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1996