Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Trostle, 951 P.2d 869.

245 citing documents.

State v. Parrinello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Fuentes, 209 Ariz. at 58, ¶ 32 (); ().
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 32 (App. 2004) (); (“The trial court’s decision will be upheld unless there exists no reasonable basis in the record upon which its decision could have been made.”).
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–13 (1997); –76, ¶ 5 (App. 2010).
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(impermissible comment on defendant’s failure to testify was error, but harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt); ¶¶ 17–18, (defendant fails to meet burden of establishing prejudice from impermissible comment if
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(citing Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990)); (noting trial court judge is not required to state on the record the standard of proof being applied because we can assume the judge applied the proper burden).
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-14, -79 (1997) (trial court is justified in striking jurors who do not follow admonition, but does not abuse its discretion by choosing not to strike jurors when satisfied of their continued impartiality).
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Answering questions after police properly give the Miranda warnings constitutes waiver by conduct.”).
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(concluding that prosecutor’s statement was an impermissible comment on defendant’s failure to testify, but the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict in view of the “overwhelming evidence of guilt and the context within which it was made”).
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
¶83 A murder is especially cruel if the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that “‘the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.’” ¶ 25, ( ).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
36 ¶77 To show that a murder is especially cruel, the state must “prove[] beyond a reasonable doubt that ‘the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.’” ¶ 25, ( ).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
¶ 66, State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 12
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Kenneth B. v. Tina B. 243 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Kenneth B. v. Tina B. 243 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
11 experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” (citation omitted).
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
hen the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” ¶ 70, (citation and internal quotations omitted); accord Morris, 215 Ariz. at 338 ¶ 61, 341 ¶ 79, 160 P.3d at 217, 220
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
Repeated Miranda warnings are required in “circumstances suggesting that a suspect is not fully aware of his rights.”
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
¶78 A murder is especially cruel when “the victim consciously experienced physical or mental pain prior to death, and the defendant knew or should have known that suffering would occur.” (internal citation omitted).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010