Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rogovich, 932 P.2d 794.

57 citing documents.

State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(explaining “the defendant’s confrontation right extends to the testifying expert witness, not to those who do not testify but whose findings or research merely form the basis for the witness’s testimony”).
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
801(c)(2); ("Testimony not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted by an out-of-court declarant is not hearsay and does not violate the confrontation clause."); ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (statements were non-hearsay when not offered for the truth of the matter asserted).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
To satisfy this factor, “the homicides must be temporally, spatially, and motivationally related, taking place during ‘one continuous course of criminal conduct.’” State v. Prasertphong (Prasertphong II), ¶ 15, ( ).
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[T]he defendant’s confrontation right extends to the testifying expert witness, not to those who do not testify but whose findings or research merely form the basis for the witness’s testimony.”).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
801(c); (“Testimony not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted by an out-of-court declarant is not hearsay[.]”).
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Testimony not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted by an out-of-court declarant .
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
at 229 ¶ 26, 159 P.3d at 539 ( ).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
To satisfy this factor, the State must prove that the homicides were “temporally, spatially, and motivationally related, taking place during ‘one continuous course of criminal conduct.’” ¶ 15, ( ).
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
The State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the murders were “temporally, spatially, and motivationally related, taking place during ‘one continuous course of criminal conduct.’” ¶ 15, ( ).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
during ‘one continuous course of criminal conduct.’” ¶ 15, ( ).
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
(stating that defendant has right to confront testifying expert witness, but not individuals “whose findings or research merely form the basis for the witness’s testimony”); 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 703.06 (Joseph M. McL
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
24 “Facts or data underlying [a] testifying expert’s opinion are admissible for the limited purpose of showing the basis of that opinion, [but] not to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
See, -46, -02 (1997) (holding that the quality of three aggravators outweighed the value of six mitigators and that the death penalty was appropriate).
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
See, -46, -02 (1997) (holding that the quality of the three aggravators outweighed the quality of the six mitigators and thus death penalty was appropriate); -24, ¶¶ 62-66, -86 (2002) (holding that the quali
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
To establish this aggravating factor, the State must prove not only that the defendant committed multiple homicides, but also that the murders occurred during “a continuous course of criminal conduct.” , 169 ¶ 65, ( , ).
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
See, , (holding that quality of three aggravating circumstances outweighed quality of six miti-gators and thus death was appropriate); , (holding that quality of aggravators outweighed quality of mitigators and thus death was appropriate sentence).
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
(citing State v. Rogovich, 188 Ariz. 38, 45, ).
State v. Cropper 68 P.3d 407 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cropper 68 P.3d 407 Ariz. 2003
(holding F.2 aggravating circumstance applies "to convictions entered prior to the sentencing hearing, regardless of the order in which the underlying crimes occurred or the convictions entered”); -81 , -28 (1996) (holding F.2 aggra
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
The (F)(8) aggravating factor is only properly applicable when there is evidence that all the killings took place during “a continuous course of criminal conduct.”
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
800 (1997) (upholding capital sentencing under A.R.S.
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
Instead, all homicides must take place during “one continuous course of criminal conduct.” , ( , ).