green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pandeli
Ring II, 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443. ¶ 4 Following the Supreme Court’s Ring II decision, we consolidated all death penalty cases in which this court had not yet issued a direct appeal mandate to determine whether Ring II requires this court to reverse or vacate the defendants’ death sentences.
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Charles Towery v Charles Ryan
See State v. Sansing, 200 Ariz. 347 , 26 P.3d 1118, 1129 (2001) (citing Towery for the proposition that the “sentencer therefore must consider the defendant’s upbringing if proffered but is not required to give it significant mitigating weight.” (emphasis added) (quoting Towery, 920 P.2d at 311 ) (internal quotation marks omitted)), judgment vacated on other grounds by Sansing v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 954 , 122 S.Ct. 2654 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel
See State v. Sansing, 200 Ariz. 347 , 353 ¶ 12, 26 P.3d 1118, 1124 (2001), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 536 U.S. 954 , 122 S.Ct. 2654 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). ¶44 Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury’s finding.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Modden
NOTES [1] Modden v. State, 721 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). [2] Ex parte Modden, No. 71,312 (Tex.Crim.App. delivered Feb. 12, 1992) (not designated for publication); see Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 328 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (holding that jurors that are considering the death penalty must have a vehicle to give effect to their reasoned moral response to the defendant's mitigating evidence). [3] Modden v. State , No, 71,493 (Tex.Crim.App. delivered June 8, 1994) (not designated for publication). [4] Ex parte Modden, No. 11,364-04 (Tex.Crim.App. delivered July 1, 1998) …
discussed
Cited "see"
Lynn v. Reinstein
But while Payne overruled Booth’s per se ban on victims’ statements regarding the victim and the impact of the crime on the victim’s family, it did not find victims’ sentencing opinions relevant. 5 Id. at 827 , 830 & n. 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2609 , 2611 & n. 2; accord State v. Sansing, 200 Ariz. 347, 358, ¶¶ 35-37 , 26 P.3d 1118, 1129 (2001) (affirming the trial court’s refusal *191 to consider the victim’s ten-year-old daughter’s request for mercy as a mitigating circumstance because the request for mercy was not relevant to mitigation), vacated on other grounds by 536 U.S. 954 , 12…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bearup
See, e.g., State v. Pandeli (Pandeli I), 200 Ariz. 365, 376, ¶ 41 , 26 P.3d 1136, 1147 (2001) (removing victim’s nipples after death constituted mutilation), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2654 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002) (mem.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
See also State v. Pandeli, 200 Ariz. 365, 382, ¶ 88 , 26 P.3d 1136, 1153 (2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2654 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002); State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232, 246-47 , 762 P.2d 519, 533-34 (1988). ¶ 77 (7) Section 13-703 provides no objective standards to guide the jurors in weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and therefore violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 15, of the Arizona Constitution.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Modden
v.
Texas
v.
Texas
01-10635.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 28, 2002.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Atkins v. Virginia, ante, p. 304.