Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lynn v. Reinstein, 68 P.3d 412.

62 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
P. 19.1(e)(3); ¶ 17 (2003) (holding the Eighth Amendment bars victims from offering sentencing recommendations).
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
30 STATE OF ARIZONA V. DWANDARRIUS JAMAR ROBINSON Opinion of the Court specific mitigating circumstances during voir dire, State v. (Ruben M.) Johnson, –35 ¶¶ 29–35 (2006); (10) that victim impact statements relevant to harm caused by a defendant’s criminal acts are constitutionally permissible, ¶ 17 (2003); (11) that the death penalty statute does not unconstitutionally fail to require cumulative consideration of multiple mitigating factors or specific findings as to each, Sansing, 200 Ariz. at
Harris v. Mathews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Harris v. Mathews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶12 A victim has no authority to direct the prosecution of a criminal case, and “in some cases the wishes of the victim may be adverse to those of the prosecution.” State v. Superior Court (Wilkinson), -82 (App. 1995); ¶ 15 (2003) 4 HARRIS v. MATHEWS, et al. Decision of the Court (finding a victim has no “party status” in criminal proceedings).
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And as our supreme court held in State v. Lamberton, “neither the VBR nor the VRIA gives victims a right to control the proceedings, to plead defenses, or to examine or cross-examine witnesses; the VBR and the VRIA give victims the right to participate and be notified of certain criminal proceedings.” , ¶¶ 15-17 , (holding that though victims deserve to be heard and to receive fair treatment in criminal cases, they may not make sentencing recommendations to the jury).
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
[and] do not violate the Eighth Amendment.” (citing Lynn v. Reinstein, 205 Ariz. 186, 191 ¶ 17, )); see also State v. Tucker (Tucker II), ¶ 92, (“Evidence about the victim and the effect of the crime on the victim’s family is [also] admissible during the penalty phase as rebuttal to the
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
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
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 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
-70 ¶ 101, -23 (2009); Lynn v. Reinstein, 205 Ariz. 186, 190-91 ¶¶ 13-17, -17 (2003).
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. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
Martin-Costa v. Kiger 235 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Martin-Costa v. Kiger 235 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 11 Mother recognizes that, as a nonparty, ¶ 15 , (concluding "that victims are not parties to a defendant's criminal case"), she cannot invoke the right of a party to move for a change of judge, see Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
P.3d 412 (2003); State ex rel.
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991), however, “removed the per se bar to the admission of victims’ statements regarding the effect of a crime upon their lives.” ¶ 16
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
[and] do not violate the Eighth Amendment.”) ( ¶ 17, ).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
¶ 6, this Court found it permissible under the Victim’s Bill of Rights to allow victims to offer testimony regarding the victim and the impact of the crime on the victim and the victim’s family.
Douglass v. State 195 P.3d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Douglass v. State 195 P.3d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
[t]o be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process,” Article 2, Section 2.1(A)(1), and that “[t]he rights granted to victims are to ‘be liberally construed.’” , (quoting A.R.S.
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007