DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jones, 917 P.2d 200.

123 citing documents.

  • State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
    Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 356-57 (1967); Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 265, 689 P.2d at 524.
  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
    ond “there was no showing that the defendant knew or should have known the victim was dead after the first pass of the car”); (finding gratuitous violence when, after inflicting a wound to the head that was “unquestionably fatal,” the defendant walked around the counter and shot the victim two more times); State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 488-89, -18 (1996) (finding gratuitous violence when the defendant, after inflicting two fatal blows, asphyxiated the victim).
  • State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    -82 , -211 (1996) (“Because defendant did not make this argument in his motion to suppress, our inquiry is limited to fundamental error analysis.”); , (Absent fundamental error, defendant waived version of suppression argument that
  • State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Walker 158 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Walker 158 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    1086 (1954)); , (holding where owners had joint access or control over dining room closet where defendants’ clothes were found, they both had authority to consent).
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
    (finding “cruelty” when victim experienced pain and uncertainty about his fate); -72 , -26 (1993) (finding “cruelty” when victim received numerous injuries from prolonged beating).
  • State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 26 As a preliminary matter the State argues that Miranda-Cabrera, like the defendant in Sepahi II, 206 Ariz. at 324, n. 3, ¶ 19 , 78 P.3d at 735 ( , ), waived any claim he might have to resentencing pursuant to Apprendi 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct.
  • State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
  • 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
    See, -82 , -11 (1996) (reviewing admission of evidence for fundamental error despite failure to raise arguments in motion to suppress).
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    See, e.g., State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 480-82, -11 (1996) (reviewing admission of evidence for fundamental error despite failure to raise arguments in motion to suppress).
  • State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 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. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
    See Rossi, 154 Ariz. at 249 , 741 P.2d at 1227
  • Calik v. Superior Court 979 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Calik v. Superior Court 979 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    See, , Castaneda, 150 Ariz. at 389 , 724 P.2d at 8 ; -10 , -90 (1984); Girdler, 138 Ariz. at 485-86 , 675 P.2d at 1304-05 ; -01 , -16 (1982)
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
    See, e.g., State v. Stokley, 182 Ariz. at 524 , 898 P.2d at 473
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
    (holding that a history of substance abuse is only a mitigating factor when a causal connection exists between the alcohol and drug abuse and the crime); -91, -20 (1996) (holding that a chaotic and abusive childhood is only a mitigating factor with evidence of a causal connection between the abuse and the crime).
  • State v. Fontes 986 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998