Cited by

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

288 citing documents.

State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
The requisite force required for an armed rob *89 bery need only “be used ‘against any person,’ not necessarily only against the person dispossessed of the property.” , ( , ); -94, ¶¶ 17-21 , -49 (App.2000).
Distinguished State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
20 ¶37 to support its argument that the “rule of completeness” should permit introduction of Prasertphong’s statement.
Proksa v. STATE SCHOOLS FOR DEAF AND BLIND 74 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2003
Proksa v. STATE SCHOOLS FOR DEAF AND BLIND 74 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2003
See Yeazell, 98 Ariz. at 112 , 402 P.2d at 543 ("It is plain that in this state pensions cannot be sustained as constitutional unless anchored to a firmer basis than that of a gift."); , (statutes should be interpreted whenever possible in a fashion so as to preserve their constitutionality).
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
¶ 10 Moreover, when considering a constitutional challenge to a statute, we begin with the premise that the statute is constitutional, ¶ 11 , and we construe it “so as to preserve [its] constitutionality wherever possible.” *475 202
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“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. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
As a result, the “specified statutory aggravators in Arizona’s death penalty scheme are designed to narrow, in a constitutional manner, the class of first degree murderers who are death-eligible.”
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. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(“The specified statutory aggravators in Arizona’s death penalty scheme are designed to narrow, in a constitutional manner, the class of first degree murderers who are death-eligible.”).
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
-09 , -32 (1996) (financial gain as impetus for homicide); Gonzales, 181 Ariz. at 513 , 892 P.2d at 849 ; , (“[T]he purpose of the killing must be to further the defendant’s motive of pecuniary gain....
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Accordingly, our supreme court has held that robbery requires “only that force be used ‘against any person,’ not necessarily only against the person dispossessed of the property.” , (upholding robbery conviction as to wife who was tied up in order to allow defendant to steal husband’s property); , (use of force against three store employees to prevent defendant’s taking of store property supported robbery counts as to all three, despite lack of evidence as to two employees *394 that property was
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
¶ 19 , our supreme court found that the defendant’s use of force to prevent three store employees from resisting his taking store property supported separate counts of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery, despite the alleged lack of evidence show
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
See Greene, 192 Ariz. at 438-39 , 967 P.2d at 113-14 ; , 928 * Hyde, 186 Ariz. at 280 , 921 P.2d at 683 (“Pecuniary gain need not be the exclusive cause for a murder” in order to satisfy (F)(5)); , (motive of witness elimination did not foreclose the possibility of finding an additi
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
(“The availability of a *23 ‘real life’ sentence is not, in our opinion, a mitigator____”).
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
cert, denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct.