Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2019Montgomery also held that relitigating sentences in every case is not required, and that "[a] State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole." 136 S.Ct. at 736 . 2019Montgomery also held that relitigating sentences in every case is not required, and that "[a] State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole." 136 S.Ct. at 736 . | 3 | 12 |
State of Arizona v. valencia/healergreen2 sentences2025That same year, the Arizona Supreme Court held in State v. Valencia, 241 Ariz. 206 (2016), that petitioners “are entitled to evidentiary hearings on their Rule 32.1(g) petitions [when] they have made colorable claims for relief based on Miller.” Id. at 210, ¶ 18 .1 1 Valencia has since been overruled. 2025That same year, the Arizona Supreme Court held in State v. Valencia, 241 Ariz. 206 (2016), that petitioners “are entitled to evidentiary hearings on their Rule 32.1(g) petitions [when] they have made colorable claims for relief based on Miller.” Id. at 210, ¶ 18 .1 1 Valencia has since been overruled. | 1 | 3 |
Pope v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1988Defendants next argue that the trial court’s instruction on the third prong of the Miller test, whether the item lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, was improper in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 , 107 S.Ct. 1918 , 95 L.Ed.2d 439 (1987). 1988Defendants next argue that the trial court’s instruction on the third prong of the Miller test, whether the item lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, was improper in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 , 107 S.Ct. 1918 , 95 L.Ed.2d 439 (1987). | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987The court noted that Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 , 97 S.Ct. 1756 , 52 L.Ed.2d 324 (1977), held that [T]he first and second prongs of the Miller test—appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness—are issues of fact for the jury to determine applying contemporary community standards. [As to Miller’s third prong], [t]he proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole. — U 1987The court noted that Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 , 97 S.Ct. 1756 , 52 L.Ed.2d 324 (1977), held that [T]he first and second prongs of the Miller test—appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness—are issues of fact for the jury to determine applying contemporary community standards. [As to Miller’s third prong], [t]he proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole. — U | 1 | 2 |
Montgomery v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2025The Court further held, in 2016, that the Miller rule was “retroactive.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 208-09 (2016). 2025The Court further held, in 2016, that the Miller rule was “retroactive.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 208-09 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2023But as Jones made clear, “Montgomery did not purport to add to Miller’s requirements.” 141 S. Ct. at 1316 ; see also id. at 1317 (“Despite the procedural function of Miller’s rule, Montgomery held that the Miller rule was substantive for retroactivity purposes and therefore applied retroactively on collateral review.”). 2023But as Jones made clear, “Montgomery did not purport to add to Miller’s requirements.” 141 S. Ct. at 1316 ; see also id. at 1317 (“Despite the procedural function of Miller’s rule, Montgomery held that the Miller rule was substantive for retroactivity purposes and therefore applied retroactively on collateral review.”). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasicgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Kasic , 228 Ariz. 228 , ¶¶ 2, 26, 265 P.3d 410 (denying relief for juvenile who committed a series of arsons). 2018See, e.g. , Kasic , 228 Ariz. 228 , ¶¶ 2, 26, 265 P.3d 410 (denying relief for juvenile who committed a series of arsons). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2016The superior court is bound to follow our decision in Vera, see State v. Patterson, 222 Ariz. 574, ¶ 20 , 218 P.3d 1031, 1037 (App. 2009), and Stewart has failed to persuade us any purpose would be served by remanding the case for a hearing. 2016The superior court is bound to follow our decision in Vera, see State v. Patterson, 222 Ariz. 574, ¶ 20 , 218 P.3d 1031, 1037 (App. 2009), and Stewart has failed to persuade us any purpose would be served by remanding the case for a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sotogreen2 sentences2013See State v. Soto, 117 Ariz. 345, 348 , 572 P.2d 1183, 1186 (1977) (calling prejudice the most important factor). 2013See State v. Soto, 117 Ariz. 345, 348 , 572 P.2d 1183, 1186 (1977) (calling prejudice the most important factor). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 372546green2 sentences1985Moreover, the Court’s task is not limited to reviewing a jury finding under part (c) of the Miller test that “the work, taken as a whole, lack[ed] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller also requires independent review of a jury’s determination under part (b) of the Miller test that “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.” ’ Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 163-64 , 94 S.Ct. 2750, 2756 , 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974) (Brennan, J., concurring) (citation omitted.) 610 F.2d at 1363. 1985Moreover, the Court’s task is not limited to reviewing a jury finding under part (c) of the Miller test that “the work, taken as a whole, lack[ed] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller also requires independent review of a jury’s determination under part (b) of the Miller test that “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.” ’ Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 163-64 , 94 S.Ct. 2750, 2756 , 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974) (Brennan, J., concurring) (citation omitted.) 610 F.2d at 1363. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2016Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. 2015Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Leon
green
2 sentences2016Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. 2015Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Mathena v. Malvo
green
1 sentence2025Each petition was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mathena v. Malvo, 586 U.S. 1221 (2019) (dismissed by 140 S. Ct. 919 (2020)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kansas v. Cheever
green
2 sentences2018Here, no affirmative defense was presented—only the claim that at the time of sentencing, Cabanas’ crime did not reflect irreparable corruption: an evaluation that does not turn on his mental ability to premeditate or other “mental status,” id., but on the aspects of the crime and his level of maturity at that time. ¶24 In State v. Druke, a special action case, the court of appeals reviewed whether the superior court could grant the State’s request to appoint a mental health expert to examine the accused where the defendant 4 The State conceded at oral argument that Cabanas could challenge eac 2018Here, no affirmative defense was presented—only the claim that at the time of sentencing, Cabanas’ crime did not reflect irreparable corruption: an evaluation that does not turn on his mental ability to premeditate or other “mental status,” id., but on the aspects of the crime and his level of maturity at that time. ¶24 In State v. Druke, a special action case, the court of appeals reviewed whether the superior court could grant the State’s request to appoint a mental health expert to examine the accused where the defendant 4 The State conceded at oral argument that Cabanas could challenge eac | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2013Miller’s failure to assert the right does not weigh heavily against him because we “attach a different weight to a situation in which the defendant knowingly fails to object from a situation in which his attorney acquiesces in long delay without adequately informing his client.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 529 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . ¶ 12 The fourth and most important Barker factor — prejudice to the defendant — does not support Miller’s claim of a Sixth Amendment violation. 2013Miller’s failure to assert the right does not weigh heavily against him because we “attach a different weight to a situation in which the defendant knowingly fails to object from a situation in which his attorney acquiesces in long delay without adequately informing his client.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 529 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . ¶ 12 The fourth and most important Barker factor — prejudice to the defendant — does not support Miller’s claim of a Sixth Amendment violation. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
New York v. Ferber
green
2 sentences1989Recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment is not incompatible with our earlier decisions. ‘The question whether speech is, or is not, protected by the First Amendment often depends on the content of the speech.’ 458 U.S. at 752-63 , 102 S.Ct. at 3352-57, 73 L.Ed.2d at 1120-26 (emphasis added). 1989Recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment is not incompatible with our earlier decisions. ‘The question whether speech is, or is not, protected by the First Amendment often depends on the content of the speech.’ 458 U.S. at 752-63 , 102 S.Ct. at 3352-57, 73 L.Ed.2d at 1120-26 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
One 1984 Lincoln Mark VII Two-Door v. United States
green
2 sentences1988(Emphasis added.) As noted by this court in State v. Feld, 155 Ariz. 88 , 91 n. 1, 745 P.2d. 146 , 149 n. 1 (App.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1270 , 99 L.Ed.2d 482 (1988), the third part of the Miller test found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(2) must be analyzed according to the reasonable person standard articulated in Pope , which is entirely consistent with the language of our statute. 1988(Emphasis added.) As noted by this court in State v. Feld, 155 Ariz. 88 , 91 n. 1, 745 P.2d. 146 , 149 n. 1 (App.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1270 , 99 L.Ed.2d 482 (1988), the third part of the Miller test found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(2) must be analyzed according to the reasonable person standard articulated in Pope , which is entirely consistent with the language of our statute. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Feld
green
2 sentences1988(Emphasis added.) As noted by this court in State v. Feld, 155 Ariz. 88 , 91 n. 1, 745 P.2d. 146 , 149 n. 1 (App.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1270 , 99 L.Ed.2d 482 (1988), the third part of the Miller test found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(2) must be analyzed according to the reasonable person standard articulated in Pope , which is entirely consistent with the language of our statute. 1988(Emphasis added.) As noted by this court in State v. Feld, 155 Ariz. 88 , 91 n. 1, 745 P.2d. 146 , 149 n. 1 (App.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1270 , 99 L.Ed.2d 482 (1988), the third part of the Miller test found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(2) must be analyzed according to the reasonable person standard articulated in Pope , which is entirely consistent with the language of our statute. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hamling v. United States
green
2 sentences1986Although the Miller test can result in a jury using " `local' attitudes because of the limited area from which the jury is drawn, ... this does not make the obscenity standard any more a geographic one than tests involving `the propensities of a "reasonable" person in other areas of the law.'" United States v. Cutting, supra, 538 F.2d at 841 , citing Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 104-05 , 94 S.Ct. at 2901 , 41 L.Ed.2d at 613 . 1986Although the Miller test can result in a jury using " `local' attitudes because of the limited area from which the jury is drawn, ... this does not make the obscenity standard any more a geographic one than tests involving `the propensities of a "reasonable" person in other areas of the law.'" United States v. Cutting, supra, 538 F.2d at 841 , citing Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 104-05 , 94 S.Ct. at 2901 , 41 L.Ed.2d at 613 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
FRIGALIMENT IMPORTING CO., LTD. v. BNS International Sales Corp.
green
2 sentences1986International Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). [3] Thus, for the reasons set out by Judges Lacagnina and Livermore in the opinion and concurring opinion of the court of appeals (163 Ariz. at 318-20, 787 P.2d at 1114-16), I believe that expert testimony is essential to satisfy our statutory version of the first part of the Miller test. 1986International Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). [3] Thus, for the reasons set out by Judges Lacagnina and Livermore in the opinion and concurring opinion of the court of appeals (163 Ariz. at 318-20, 787 P.2d at 1114-16), I believe that expert testimony is essential to satisfy our statutory version of the first part of the Miller test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Carl Dennis Cutting and Barry Daniel Still
green
2 sentences1986Although the Miller test can result in a jury using " `local' attitudes because of the limited area from which the jury is drawn, ... this does not make the obscenity standard any more a geographic one than tests involving `the propensities of a "reasonable" person in other areas of the law.'" United States v. Cutting, supra, 538 F.2d at 841 , citing Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 104-05 , 94 S.Ct. at 2901 , 41 L.Ed.2d at 613 . 1986Although the Miller test can result in a jury using " `local' attitudes because of the limited area from which the jury is drawn, ... this does not make the obscenity standard any more a geographic one than tests involving `the propensities of a "reasonable" person in other areas of the law.'" United States v. Cutting, supra, 538 F.2d at 841 , citing Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 104-05 , 94 S.Ct. at 2901 , 41 L.Ed.2d at 613 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Miller v. California
green
2 sentences1986A similar result is required with regard to the third part—whether the item, “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” 413 U.S. at 24 , 93 S.Ct. at 2615 . 1986A similar result is required with regard to the third part—whether the item, “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” 413 U.S. at 24 , 93 S.Ct. at 2615 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Jenkins v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1985Moreover, the Court’s task is not limited to reviewing a jury finding under part (c) of the Miller test that “the work, taken as a whole, lack[ed] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller also requires independent review of a jury’s determination under part (b) of the Miller test that “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.” ’ Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 163-64 , 94 S.Ct. 2750, 2756 , 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974) (Brennan, J., concurring) (citation omitted.) 610 F.2d at 1363. 1985Moreover, the Court’s task is not limited to reviewing a jury finding under part (c) of the Miller test that “the work, taken as a whole, lack[ed] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller also requires independent review of a jury’s determination under part (b) of the Miller test that “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.” ’ Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 163-64 , 94 S.Ct. 2750, 2756 , 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974) (Brennan, J., concurring) (citation omitted.) 610 F.2d at 1363. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.