Cited by

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

62 citing documents.

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
Lynn v. Reinstein, 205 Ariz. 186, 191, ¶ 16, (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991)).
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
¶ 17, (relying on Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 53 (1991)).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Similarly, our supreme court has recognized that the Eighth Amendment does not bar “[sjtatements relevant to the harm caused by the defendant’s criminal acts.” ¶ 17
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
entencing recommendation in a capital case is relevant turns on the question of whether the recommendation “creates a constitutionally unacceptable risk that jurors may impose a death sentence based upon impermissible arbitrary and emotional factors.” Lynn v. Reinstein, 205 Ariz. 186, 190 n.5, ¶ 13, n.5 (2003) (citations omitted); ¶ 37, (citations omitted).
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
(holding that victims may testify about the personal characteristics of the deceased and about the murder’s impact on the deceased’s family, but may not recommend a sentence).