Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rienhardt, 951 P.2d 454.

249 citing documents.

State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
“[T]here is nothing sanitary about murder, and there is nothing in Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid., that requires a trial judge to make it so.” ¶ 40, (quoting State v. Reinhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 584, ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
Although photographs may not be introduced solely to inflame the jury, State v. Anderson (Anderson II), ¶ 40, “[t]here is nothing sanitary about murder,” and we do not “require[] a trial judge to make it so,” 10 State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 584
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
But “[w]e have frequently found that a defendant’s claim of alcohol or drug impairment fails when there is evidence that the defendant took steps to avoid prosecution shortly after the murder, or when it appears that intoxication did not overwhelm the defendant’s ability to control his physical behavior.” -92, -67 (1997).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
“[A] defendant’s claim of alcohol or drug impairment fails when there is evidence that the defendant took steps to avoid prosecution shortly after the murder, or when it appears that intoxication did not overwhelm the defendant’s ability to control his physical behavior.” State v. Reinhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 591-92, -67 (1997).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
Because “[t]here is nothing sanitary about murder,” nothing “requires a trial judge to make it so.”
State of Arizona v. Daughters-White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daughters-White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
-86, -61 (1997) (“fact that the prosecution is in a better position to secure a witness’s cooperation” does not “mean that the witness is under the prosecution’s control”).
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
intoxication or substance abuse can be a mitigating factor that supports a G.1 finding, “a defendant’s claim of alcohol or drug impairment fails when there is evidence that the defendant took steps to avoid prosecution shortly after the murder, or when it appears that intoxication did not overwhelm the defendant’s ability to control his physical behavior.” - 92, -67 (1997).
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
¶126 In murder cases, “[n]otwithstanding an offer to stipulate to the cause of death, photographs of a murder victim are relevant if they help to illustrate what occurred.”
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
Because “[t]here is nothing sanitary about murder,” nothing “requires a trial judge to make it so.”
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
“There is nothing sanitary about murder, and there is nothing in Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid., that requires a trial judge to make it so.”
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
(the fact the defendant’s family appeared to care about his future and that he had a young son did not overcome the aggravators).
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
Medina, 193 Ariz. at 513 , 975 P.2d at 103 ¶ 31 (finding causal relationship between pecuniary gain motive and murder attenuated by fact that killing was “removed in time and place” from robbery) ( , ).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
Medina, 193 Ariz. at 513, 975 P.2d at 103 ¶31 (finding causal relationship between pecuniary gain motive and murder attenuated by fact that killing was “removed in time and place” from robbery) ( ).
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
Kayer, 194 Ariz. at 433 , 984 P.2d at 41 ¶ 30; , *375 589
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
¶ 18 , in which the murder took place in the context of a drug deal.
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
616 & n. 10, , 995 & n. 10 (1995).
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
(holding that a history of substance abuse is only a mitigating factor when a causal connection exists between the alcohol and drug abuse and the crime); -91, -20 (1996) (holding that a chaotic and abusive childhood is only a mitigating
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
(rejecting history of substance abuse as a mitigating circumstance when no evidence establishes a causal connection between the drug abuse and the crime).
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998