Cited by

Thomas 15 ¶ 11 (2005), and the death penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of aggravating circumstances, see A.R.S.

Granville emphasized that any mitigating circumstances to be considered by the jury must be “proved by the defendant or present in the record.” –73 ¶¶ 17–18 (2005); (“That the burden is on the defendant reinforces the conclusion that his personal decision not to present certain mitigating evidence is within his discretion.”).

Thomas v. Granville , , ¶ 8, ).

Thomas v. Granville (Baldwin), ¶ 21 (2005); cf. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) (“[T]he ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” (citing Ring, 536 U.S. at 602)).

Thomas v. Granville , , ¶ 8

Thomas v. Granville , , 471, ¶ 8, (on review, "instructions to a jury are read as a whole, not in isolated parts, to ensure that a jury is properly instructed on the law") ).

Thomas v. Granville (Baldwin), ¶¶ 18–21 (2005).

¶ 8 (2005) (stating that instructions to a jury are read as a whole, not in isolated parts, to ensure that a jury is properly instructed on the law).

¶ 8 (2005) (citation omitted).

Thomas v. Granville (Baldwin), ¶ 18, (“A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to the assessment of the appropriate penalty.”).

Thomas v. Granville (Baldwin), STATE v. CARLSON Opinion of the Court ¶55 Carlson also contends that, by commenting on the burning of the victims’ bodies, the State impermissibly suggested that jurors could consider that fact as fulf

Thomas v. Granville (Baldwin), –73 ¶ 17–18, –67 (2005).