Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sansing, 26 P.3d 1118.

68 citing documents.

State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
¶ 46, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 954 (2002), and Schackart, 190 Ariz. at 260, 947 P.2d at 337.
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
¶ 15, (internal citations omitted), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 954 (2002).
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
¶ 46, vacated on other grounds, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
We rejected the same argument in State v. Sansing, 200 Ariz. 347, 361, ¶ 46, vacated on other grounds by Sansing v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 954 (2002).
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
at 827, 830 & n.2, 111 S. Ct. at 2609, 2611 & n.2; ¶¶ 35-37, (affirming the trial court’s refusal to consider the victim’s ten-year-old daughter’s request for mercy as a mitigating circumstance because the request for mercy was not relevant to mitigation), vacated on other grounds by 122 S. Ct. 2654 (2002).
State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
The State must establish F.5 by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that financial gain “was a motive, cause, or impetus for the murder and not merely the result of the murder.” ¶ 12, ¶ 12 (2001) (citations omitted).
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
¶ 94 We recognize that “[a] murder committed in the context of a robbery or burglary is not per se motivated by pecuniary gain.” , , 1124 ¶ 13 (2001).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
¶94 We recognize that “[a] murder committed in the context of a robbery or burglary is not per se motivated by pecuniary gain.” ¶13 (2001).