Cited by

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

223 citing documents.

State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
Compassionate nature ¶79 “Past good conduct and character is a relevant mitigating circumstance,” but “a single good deed, removed in time from the crime, does not rise to that level.” ¶ 57
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
In our independent reweighing of the evidence, we consider the “quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 60
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
C ¶63 In conducting our independent review of the propriety of a death sentence, “we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 60, 14 Significant evidence showed that Harrod had posed as “Gordon Phillips” to meet and interview Jeanne Tovrea in July of the year before the murder.
State v. Lee 176 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Lee 176 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Additionally, when determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict, evidence must be construed in the “light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” ¶ 12
State v. Jensen 173 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Jensen 173 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
I. 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. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
In conducting our analysis, 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. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
In conducting our independent review, we “consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 166, ( ¶ 60, ).
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
In doing so, we will “consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 60
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In so doing, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the convictions, , and in the light most favorable to the proponent of the challenged evidence, here the state.
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
In our assessment, “we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 60, - 83 - (1998).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
E. ¶ 60 This Court “independently determines ‘if the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency in light of existing aggravation.’” Roseberry, 210 Ariz. at 373 ¶ 77, 111 P.3d at 415 ( , 443-44 ¶ 60, -19 (1998)); A.R.S.
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
See, ¶ 57, (defining heinous and depraved); ¶ 34, (defining relishing); State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 606, (defining witness elimination); -53, This Court also rejected Anderson’s challenge that the decision in Walton would not
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
Under the superseded statute, we determined that in the process of conducting this court’s independent review, “we consider the quality and the strength [of the aggravating and mitigating factors], not simply the number.” State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 443, ¶ 60
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
Under the superseded statute, we rejected a rigid mathematical approach to reweighing, holding that “[i]n weighing, we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 443, ¶ 60
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
J. Independent Weighing ¶77 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.” -44, ¶ 60, -19 (1998); see also A.R.S.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
at ¶ 97 ( , 443 ¶ 60, ).
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
In doing so, we rejected a strictly mathematical approach and held that in “weighing, we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number of aggravating and mitigating factors.” , 443 ¶ 60
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 40 , (“We agree that the statements [of defendant] constitute bragging and show a tremendous lack of remorse.”).
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 3 ‘We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 , (citation omitted); ¶ 27 , (stating that, in reviewing the record, we draw all reasonable inferences that support the verdict).
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002