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.
8 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. McDanielgreen2 sentences1982Later we had occasion to consider subsection B of A.R.S. § 13-703, stating: “The statute is unambiguous in this requirement that the judge who heard the trial or accepted the plea preside at the aggravation-mitigation hearing and, by inference, impose the sentence.” State v. McDaniel, 127 Ariz. 13, 16 , 617 P.2d 1129, 1132 (1980). 1982Later we had occasion to consider subsection B of A.R.S. § 13-703, stating: “The statute is unambiguous in this requirement that the judge who heard the trial or accepted the plea preside at the aggravation-mitigation hearing and, by inference, impose the sentence.” State v. McDaniel, 127 Ariz. 13, 16 , 617 P.2d 1129, 1132 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1982State v. Thomas, 110 Ariz. 106, 109 , 515 P.2d 851, 854 (1975). 1982State v. Thomas, 110 Ariz. 106, 109 , 515 P.2d 851, 854 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Watson
green
2 sentences1981IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY After conducting an aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-454(C), State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), the trial judge found two aggravating circumstances, A.R.S. § 13-454(EX1) and (2). 1981IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY After conducting an aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-454(C), State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), the trial judge found two aggravating circumstances, A.R.S. § 13-454(EX1) and (2). | 4 | 1981–1981 |
Hampton v. Wyrick
green
2 sentences1981IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY After conducting an aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-454(C), State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), the trial judge found two aggravating circumstances, A.R.S. § 13-454(EX1) and (2). 1981The trial judge conducted the aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to not only § 703, in effect at the time of the offense, but also pursuant to State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979) and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). | 4 | 1981–1981 |
Ludwin v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance
green
2 sentences1981IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY After conducting an aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-454(C), State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), the trial judge found two aggravating circumstances, A.R.S. § 13-454(EX1) and (2). 1981The trial judge conducted the aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to not only § 703, in effect at the time of the offense, but also pursuant to State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979) and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). | 4 | 1981–1981 |
Lockett v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1981IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY After conducting an aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-454(C), State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), the trial judge found two aggravating circumstances, A.R.S. § 13-454(EX1) and (2). 1981IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY After conducting an aggravation-mitigation hearing pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-454(C), State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 , 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924 , 99 S.Ct. 1254 , 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), the trial judge found two aggravating circumstances, A.R.S. § 13-454(EX1) and (2). | 3 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Spreitz
green
2 sentences2025Spreitz admitted in a post-Miranda interview “that he hit Ms. Reid in the head with a rock more than once to make her stop yelling.” Id. ¶4 After the jury returned its guilty verdicts, the trial court conducted an aggravation-mitigation hearing and found one aggravating circumstance concerning the murder: that Spreitz murdered Reid in an especially cruel manner. 2025Id. at 135 ; see also A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) (1994). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Valencia
green
2 sentences1982Insofar as State v. Valencia, 124 Ariz. 139 , 602 P.2d 807 (1979) holds that a different judge may sentence a defendant to death after another judge has tried the case, it was overruled by State v. McDaniel, supra. Defendant contends that because the judge who tried the case is no longer able to *250 sentence him, there must be a new trial, citing McDaniel, supra. If the death penalty were still imposable, we would agree. 1982Insofar as State v. Valencia, 124 Ariz. 139 , 602 P.2d 807 (1979) holds that a different judge may sentence a defendant to death after another judge has tried the case, it was overruled by State v. McDaniel, supra. Defendant contends that because the judge who tried the case is no longer able to *250 sentence him, there must be a new trial, citing McDaniel, supra. If the death penalty were still imposable, we would agree. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Watson
green
2 sentences1981State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. 60 , 628 P.2d 943 (1981). 1981State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. 60 , 628 P.2d 943 (1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Richmond
green
2 sentences1981State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. 60 , 628 P.2d 943 (1981). 1981State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. 60 , 628 P.2d 943 (1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Broncucia v. Colorado
green
1 sentence1981State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. 60 , 628 P.2d 943 (1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Marriott Corp. v. Richard
green
1 sentence1981State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. 60 , 628 P.2d 943 (1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Heublein, Inc. v. Waters
green
1 sentence1981State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); State v. Watson, 129 Ariz. 60 , 628 P.2d 943 (1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.