Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Medina, 975 P.2d 94.

118 citing documents.

Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
A party challenging a trial judge’s impartiality must overcome the presumption that trial judges are “free of bias and prejudice,” , and must “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
See Velazquez, 216 Ariz. at 307 ¶ 23, 166 P.3d at 98; ¶ 26
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
Id.; –11 ¶¶ 16–19, - 12 - 100–01 (1999) (on facts similar to those in Kuhs, finding no error in judge’s refusal to strike juror).
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
See supra ¶ 12; ¶ 35, (relishing demonstrated by defendant “laughing out loud,” joking, and looking forward to media coverage); (bragging about beating victim shows that defendant reli
Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 9-13, -100 (1999) (judge who presided over defendant’s trial for aggravated assault and robbery properly presided over later capital murder case in which earlier convictions found to be aggravating circumstance); (judge familiar with d
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
¶ 38, (finding mutilation not proven because evidence was not presented of a separate purpose to mutilate the body).
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, 47, ¶ 46, ¶ 18
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The cases that the State cites in support of its proposed jury instruction regarding the especially heinous, cruel, or depraved factor are: , , Knapp, , ; , , , , 809
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
The Court, he acknowledges, has previously held that a sentencing judge may use a victim’s age to establish two aggravating factors, provided that the judge does not weigh this fact “twice in balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” ¶ 25
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
We rejected a similar argument in State v. Medina, 193 Ariz. 504, 515 ¶ 43, (stating “it is not unconstitutional to require the defense to establish mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence”).
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cañez, ¶ 100, ¶¶ 34-35
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
For this reason, ‘deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror’”) (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426 (1985)); ¶ 18, (“A trial court’s decision not to excuse a juror for cause will be set aside only for a clear abuse of discretion.”).
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(testimony of victim’s girlfriend and medical examiner that murder victim was over the age of seventy was sufficient for sentence aggravation purposes under A.R.S.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“[t]he existence of an economic motive at some point during the events surrounding a murder [wa]s not enough” to establish defendant had committed offense for pecuniary gain).
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
"A party challenging a trial judge's impartiality must overcome a strong presumption that trial judges are "`free of bias and prejudice.'" "
State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“[t]he existence of an economic motive at some point during the events surrounding a murder is not enough” to establish capital aggravating factor of pecuniary gain under A.R.S.
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
( ¶ 50 , , , , Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 57-58 , 659 P.2d at 16-17 ).
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Cropper 68 P.3d 407 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cropper 68 P.3d 407 Ariz. 2003
¶22 A party challenging a trial judge’s impartiality must overcome a strong presumption that trial judges are “free of bias and prejudice.” , 510 ¶ 11, ( , ).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
514 ¶ 38, , 104 ¶ 38 (1999).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002