Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-756 (2026)
Death sentences; supreme court review
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. The supreme court shall review all death sentences to determine whether the trier of fact abused its discretion in finding aggravating circumstances and imposing a sentence of death.
B. If the supreme court determines that an error occurred in the sentencing proceedings, the supreme court shall determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. If the supreme court cannot determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the supreme court shall remand the case for a new sentencing proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 372 P.3d 945 (Ariz. 2016).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 372 P.3d 945 (Ariz. 2016). “2d 1208, 1215 (1983), superseded on other grounds by A.R.S. § 13-756. This is so even when those facts are not contested because “the prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element…”
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. 2014). “A.R.S. § 13-756(A). Although an unexplained sentencing disparity between a defendant and an accomplice may be a mitigating circumstance, State v.”
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson, 351 P.3d 1079 (Ariz. 2015). “The jury also considered mitigation evidence, which included that Carlson had a difficult childhood and suffered several mental-health crises, lacked support systems, did not premeditate his crime, felt remorse, had a protective nature, and did not pose a risk of future…”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne, 314 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. 2013). “Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it to be played. III.”
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose, 297 P.3d 906 (Ariz. 2013). “¶ 38 Finally, Rose argues that the trial court erred by not informing him that “he was waiving his right of appellate review on his conviction of the capital counts if he pled guilty.”
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson, 307 P.3d 19 (Ariz. 2013). “ABUSE OF DISCRETION REVIEW ¶ 65 Because Benson committed the murders after August 1, 2002, we review the jury’s imposition of the death sentences for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker, 296 P.3d 54 (Ariz. 2013). “” A.R.S. § 13-756(A). The trier of fact did not abuse its discretion if “there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.”
State v. Cota, 272 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. 2012). “Review of the Death Sentence ¶ 90 Because the murder of Zavala occurred after August 1, 2002, we review the death sentence to “determine whether the trier of fact abused its discretion in finding aggravating circumstances and imposing a sentence of death.”
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston, 298 P.3d 887 (Ariz. 2013). “A.R.S. § 13-756(A). “A finding of aggravating circumstances or the imposition of a death sentence is not an abuse of discretion if ‘there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.”
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner, 280 P.3d 604 (Ariz. 2012). “Constitutionality of Abuse of Discretion Review ¶ 83 Under A.R.S. § 13-756(A), this Court reviews death sentences to determine if the jury abused its discretion in finding aggravating circumstances and imposing a sentence of death.”
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco, 386 P.3d 798 (Ariz. 2017). “2d 1208, 1215 (1983), superseded on other grounds by A.R.S. § 13-756 (concluding that photographs are admissible “to show the nature and location of the fatal injury, to help determine the degree or atrociousness of the crime .”
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush, 423 P.3d 370 (Ariz. 2018). “As such, the consecutive sentences do not violate § 13-116, and the trial court did not err in sentencing Bush on these counts. 28 STATE V. BUSH Opinion of the Court G.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-756(A) — 54 cases
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. 2014). “A.R.S. § 13-756(A). Although an unexplained sentencing disparity between a defendant and an accomplice may be a mitigating circumstance, State v.”
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 372 P.3d 945 (Ariz. 2016). “2d 1208, 1215 (1983), superseded on other grounds by A.R.S. § 13-756. This is so even when those facts are not contested because “the prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element…”
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson, 351 P.3d 1079 (Ariz. 2015). “The jury also considered mitigation evidence, which included that Carlson had a difficult childhood and suffered several mental-health crises, lacked support systems, did not premeditate his crime, felt remorse, had a protective nature, and did not pose a risk of future…”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne, 314 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. 2013). “Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it to be played. III.”
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose, 297 P.3d 906 (Ariz. 2013). “¶ 38 Finally, Rose argues that the trial court erred by not informing him that “he was waiving his right of appellate review on his conviction of the capital counts if he pled guilty.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-756(B) — 1 case
State v. Gunches, 234 P.3d 590 (Ariz. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.