Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Detrich, 932 P.2d 1328.

38 citing documents.

State v. Felmate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Felmate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 105 (2006) (While a disparity in sentences between co-defendants can be a mitigating circumstance, “[o]nly the unexplained disparity is significant.”); (When a disparity in sentences results from an appropriate plea agreement, disparity is not mitigating.); (“[T]he disparity between the sentence of a defendant sentenced to death and a co-defendant or accomplice sentenced to some term of imprisonment” is a mitigating
State v. Achenbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Achenbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(“[Sjpeculation is insufficient to meet defendant’s burden of proving that he was not provided a fair and impartial jury.”); -91 , -24 (App. 1993) (motion for new trial based on juror bias requires affidavit from juror); Catchi
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
Disparity is not mitigating if it results from factors suggesting the appropriateness of the sentences, such as a difference in culpability or “an appropriate plea agreement with one of the defendants.”
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
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-63, -34 (1997) and the court determined that a witness’s testimony of 4 STATE v. MENDOZA Opinion of the Court “humping” was sufficient evidence of sexual contac
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); , (“Collateral estoppel in criminal cases is an ‘integral part of the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Washington, 404 U.S. 55, 56 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
To establish relishing, we usually “require that the defendant say or do something, other than the commission of the crime itself, to show he savored the murder.” Id.; accord *32 -68, ¶ 54 , -80 (1998) (finding that defendant relished murder after defendant bragged to his cellmate about playing with the victim’s blood); , (finding that defendant relished murder and demonstrated an “abhorrent lack of regard for human life” based on defendant’s statement to his co-defendant, “It’s dead, but it’s w
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
(Defendant waived issue “by failing to sufficiently argue this claim on appeal.”); (“Failure to argue a claim constitutes abandonment and waiver of that issue.” (
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
) provides that “[t]he examination of prospective jurors shall be limited to inquiries directed to bases for challenge for cause or to information to enable the parties to exercise intelligently their peremptory challenges.” “The method and scope of voir dire is left to the discretion of the trial judge.” ¶ 37 , (-65 , -36 (1997) (Detrich II)), opinion supplemented by , 403 Ariz. Adv.
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
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
See, , (“The purpose of a contemporaneous objection requirement is to allow for an immediate remedy for potentially improper or unconstitutional activities.”); , 306 n. 5, , 846 n. 5 (1995) (regarding witness testimony); Harrington v. Beauchamp Ente
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
1189, 1194-95 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469, 475-76 (1970)
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 , (1980)); , (observing that Arizona follows the federal standard stated in Wainwright).
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
(when disparity results from appropriate plea agreement, disparity not mitigating).
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998