Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Greene, 967 P.2d 106.

223 citing documents.

State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Remarking on the distinction between inadmissible drug courier profile evidence and admissible modus operandi evidence, the court stated, “Until I hear the 1 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶6 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
See, ¶ 33, (discussing circumstances in which murder is especially heinous or depraved).
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶2 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -12 (1998).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
“We consider the quality and strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” Glassel, 211 Ariz. at 55 ¶ 93, 116 P.3d at 1215 ( ¶ 60, ).
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
Similarly, a defendant’s lack of a prior felony conviction “is a mitigating circumstance, but entitled to little weight.” ¶ 52
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
¶ 40, (noting that statements after a crime that “provide clear insight into [the defendant’s] state 19 of mind at the time of the killing” are evidence of relishing).
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 443 ¶ 60
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
“Relishing refers to words or actions that show debasement or perversion,” State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 439 ¶ 34, (internal quotation omitted), and “requires that the defendant say or do something, other than the commission of the crime itself, to show he 41 savored the murder.” State v. Doerr, 193 Ar
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
"We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict[s], and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 , (citation omitted).
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Background ¶ 2 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict[s], and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” , -12 (1998).
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
See, e.g., Moore, 222 Ariz. at 22-23 ¶ 134, 213 P.3d at 171-72; Velazquez, 216 Ariz. at 315 ¶ 74, 166 P.3d at 106; ¶ 67, ¶ 58
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
In conducting independent review, “we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 166, ( ¶ 60, ).
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In our review of the evidence, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
¶ 59, (stating that evidence of defendant’s “vile state of mind,” shown in letters after the crime, rebuts remorse); ¶¶ 64-6
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
In conducting such review, we “consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 166, ( ¶ 60, ).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
Propriety of Death Sentence ¶137 In reviewing the propriety of the death sentence, “‘we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.’” State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, 230 ¶ 166, (quoting State v. 54 Greene, ¶ 60, ).
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
In conducting our independent review, we “consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 230, ¶ 166, 141 P.3d at 405 ( ¶ 60, ).
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-37, ¶ 12 , -12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 2 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
13-755.A; see also Roseberry, 210 Ariz. at 373 ¶ 77, 111 P.3d at 415 (stating that this Court “independently reviews the jury’s findings of aggravation and independently determines ‘if the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency in light of existing aggravation’”(quoting State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 443-44 ¶ 60, -19 (1998))).
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“What the defendant does or fails to do and what he says may be evidence of what is going on in his mind.”); (jury may infer state of mind from defendant’s behavior at or near time of offense).
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Factual and Procedural History ¶ 2 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008