Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ring, 65 P.3d 915.

306 citing documents.

State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
6 See State v. Ring (Ring III), n.19, ¶ 50, n.19 (2003) (“A capital trial comprises just one trial, divided between guilt and sentencing phases, and has always been understood as such, by both this court and by the U.S. Supreme Court.”).
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 17 , (distinguishing between trial error and structural error); ¶ 45 , (same).
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
See State v. Ring (Ring III), ¶ 55
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
We rejected this argument in State v. Ring (Ring III), ¶ 24
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
-53 ¶¶ 45-46, -34 (2003) (quotation marks omitted).
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
Pursuant to State v. Ring (Ring III), ¶ 53, the 1 On appeal, the Court views the facts in the “light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” State v. Tucker (Tucker I), n.1, n.1 (2003).
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
4 (2002); State v. Ring (Ring III), P.3d 915 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Rafael Real Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Rafael Real Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶9 “We cannot ignore a Supreme Court decision interpreting federal law unless the Court expressly overrules or casts cognizable doubt on that decision.”
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
§ 13-703.01(P) (Supp. 2005), even though a jury determination is not constitutionally required, Ring v. Arizona (Ring III), -65 ¶¶ 97-101, -46 (2003).
State v. Grell 135 P.3d 696 Ariz. 2006
State v. Grell 135 P.3d 696 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ring (Ring III)
State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
-59 ¶¶ 54-68, -40 (2003).
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Nikont v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Nikont v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Moreover, P.3d 915 (2003).
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
10, 12, ¶ 17 (July 8, 2005) (distinguishing between structural error and error that is subject to trial error analysis); ¶45 , (stating structural error requires reversal, but trial error requires further analysis).
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
¶ 23, (Ring III) (citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (1977)).
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Martinez 115 P.3d 618 Ariz. 2005
State v. Martinez 115 P.3d 618 Ariz. 2005
¶22 We recognize that we rejected a ¶ 87, (Ring III).
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
(Ring III), holding that “judicial fact-finding ...
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
8 See also State v. *543 Ring, , (Ring III), discussion at n. 4, supra.
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
§ 1-244 (2002).2 ¶ 24, (“Ring III”), this court held that A.R.S.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
547 ¶¶ 15-42, (“Ring III”), , 60-61 ¶¶ 17-22, -07 (2005), and therefore need not discuss them here.
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
530 U.S. at 490, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 455; ¶¶ 64-66, (Ring III).
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by