Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Soto-Fong, 928 P.2d 610.

288 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
¶ 45, ( ); ¶ 49, (holding the discretion afforded to prosecutors under Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme does not violate the Eighth Amendment).
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Bhatt 260 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bhatt 260 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
15-16 (setting aside cruelty finding when “very little time elapsed between [the victim’s] initially seeing [the defendant] and the murder”); (finding time of contemplation insufficient to support cruelty when the victims were killed in rapid succession).
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
In evaluating uncertainty, “[t]he length of time during which a victim contemplates her fate affects 12 whether the victim’s mental anguish is sufficient to bring a murder within that group of murders that is especially cruel.” ¶ 8, -05, -29 (1996) (finding the time of contemplation insufficient when the victims were killed in rapid succession).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
¶72 in which we held that the state failed to prove the (F)(6) aggravating circumstance because the record did not establish the events leading up to the homicides.
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
-04, -28 (1996) (rejecting any “bright-line, arbitrary temporal rule” to determine whether cruelty has been established).
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
103(a)(2); -98 , -22 (1996) (defendant, precluded from impeaching witness on certain topics, made offer of proof and introduced exhibits providing impeachment evidence for appellate review); Towery, 186 Ariz. at 179 , 920 P.2d at 301 (defendant’s failure to make offer of proof prevents evaluation of whether
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
¶69 Kiles’ argument that State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, requires the Court to vacate the (F)(6) finding is incorrect.
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
at 582 ¶ 45, 48 P.3d at 1192 ( ).
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(court may consider at sentencing phase evidence prop *220 erly admitted during guilt phase).
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Prasertphong (Prasertphong II), -500 ¶¶ 13-17, -32 (2005) ( (determining that “once [Soto-Fong] made the tactical decision to introduce some of [the informant’s] testimony about [the conversation with the two alleged accomplices], he could not simultaneously preclude the state from introducing other evidence of t
State v. Prasertphong 114 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2005
State v. Prasertphong 114 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2005
they bear an adequate indicia of reliability.” The trial judge further ruled that State v. Soto- Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 193-94, -18 (1996), permitted “the admission of the entire statement .
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
In such cases, we have upheld the sentence of death because, in such cases, “[t]here is simply nothing to weigh or balance----” , , (finding remand unnecessary, citing Bible, when one aggravator set aside but mitigating evidence is de minimis); , (holding that where no new evidence was to be received, no evidence was improperly excluded, and mitigating evi
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” , (-25 , -19 (1976)).
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003