Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harrod, 26 P.3d 492.

86 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
¶77 We have previously held (1) that the death penalty does not per se constitute cruel and unusual punishment, ¶ 59 (2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002); (2) that where, as here, a defendant offers no evidence of purposeful discrimination in his own case, he cannot argue that Arizona’s death penalty is discriminatorily imposed against poor, young, and male defendants
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S. Ct. 2653, 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S.Ct.
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
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 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
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186–87, 96 S. Ct. 2909 (1976); ¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S. Ct. 2653 (2002)(mem.); see also Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 411, 844 P.2d at 578.
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
59 See State v. Harrod, 200 Ariz. 309
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
In addressing this issue, we “must examine any evidence that corroborates or contradicts the statement to find whether a reasonable person could conclude that the statement is true.” ¶ 16, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
¶ 54, (minimal weight given to family support), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S. Ct. 2653, 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
VIII, XIV; Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 15; ¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true,” and (3) “corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” In determining the admissibility of a statement, a trial court must “examine any evidence that corroborates or contradicts the statement to find whether a reasonable person could conclude that the statement is true.” vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002); accord LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 28, 734 P.2d at 570.
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
Rejected by Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); State v. Harrod (Harrod I), ¶ 59, State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 507
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); ¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953, 122 S.Ct.
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
2654 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), in which our supreme court stated it had not previously “invoked residual doubt as a mitigating circumstance,” n. 7 , , 500 n. 7 (2001) (Harrod I), judgment vacated by Harrod v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶17 judgment vacated by Pandeli v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 953 (2002), in which our supreme court stated it had not previously “invoked residual doubt as a mitigating circumstance,” n.7, n.7 (2001) (Harrod I), judgment vacated by Harrod v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 953 (2002), in which the court voiced concern that “[i]f residual doubt is a mitigating circumstance that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence, the aggravation/mitigation hearing could turn into an attac
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
40 Rejected in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); ¶ 59, judgment vacated on other grounds by Harrod v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).