Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cañez, 42 P.3d 564.

170 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See State v. Canez, 202 Ariz. 133, ¶ 80, 588 (2002) (“[W]hatever the impact of Apprendi on Walton [v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 63 9, 110 S. Ct. 30 47, 111 L. E d. 2d 511 (199 0)], it is clear that prior convictions may be found by the court.”).
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“[Wjhatever the impact of Apprendi on Walton [v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
The (F)(5) inquiry is “highly fact- intensive” and requires the State to “establish the connection between the murder and motive through direct or strong circumstantial evidence.” Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 560, ¶ 76, 65 P.3d at 941 (citing State v. Cañez, ¶ 94, ).
State v. Watkins 88 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Watkins 88 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
¶ 55 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure, 18.5(e) provides that “[t]he examination of prospective jurors shall be limited to inquiries directed to bases for challenge for cause or to information to enable the parties to exercise intelligently their peremptory challenges.” “The method and scope of voir dire is left to the discretion of the trial judge.” ¶ 37 , (-65 , -36 (1997) (Detrich II)), opinion supplemented by , 403 Ariz. Adv.
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
455 ¶ 56, , 161 ¶ 25, State v. Cañez, , 156 ¶ 76, , 418 ¶ 30
State v. Canez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Canez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Cañez, P.3d 564 (2002); P.2d 1133 (App. 1996).
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
159 ¶ 94, (holding murder of victim and only witness to robbery “is powerful circumstantial evidence of an intent to facilitate escape” and supports finding pecuniary motive); , (“Without some tangible evidence, or strong circums
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002