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 2 courts 2001–2013 0 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. Garciagreen2 sentences2013The prosecution, however, did explain the two aggravating factors in its closing statement. ¶ 35 “In assessing the adequacy of jury instructions, the instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they adequately reflect the law.” State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 , 18 ¶ 75, 226 P.3d 370, 387 (2010). 2013The prosecution, however, did explain the two aggravating factors in its closing statement. ¶ 35 “In assessing the adequacy of jury instructions, the instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they adequately reflect the law.” State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 , 18 ¶ 75, 226 P.3d 370, 387 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zaragozagreen2 sentences2013A court is not required to give a separate instruction if its substance has already been covered by other instructions, id., and “[a] conviction will not be reversed based on the instructions unless, taken as a whole, they misled the jurors.” State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49 , 53 ¶ 15, 209 P.3d 629, 633 (2009). ¶ 36 The jury instructions, taken as a whole, were accurate and not misleading. 2013A court is not required to give a separate instruction if its substance has already been covered by other instructions, id., and “[a] conviction will not be reversed based on the instructions unless, taken as a whole, they misled the jurors.” State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49 , 53 ¶ 15, 209 P.3d 629, 633 (2009). ¶ 36 The jury instructions, taken as a whole, were accurate and not misleading. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Munningergreen2 sentences2006Given our resolution of the issues involving the two aggravating factors expressly addressed by the trial court, it is unnecessary for us to address whether the viciousness of the crime is a separate aggravating factor. [3] Our opinion rejected the possibility that the use of a weapon or the seriousness of the injury could be used to (1) prove guilt, (2) find dangerousness and (3) aggravate the sentence. 209 Ariz. at 485, ¶ 38 , 104 P.3d at 216 . [4] Henderson expressly mandated: "To the extent that any prior decisions are inconsistent with today's holding, we disapprove of them." 210 Ariz. at 2006Given our resolution of the issues involving the two aggravating factors expressly addressed by the trial court, it is unnecessary for us to address whether the viciousness of the crime is a separate aggravating factor. [3] Our opinion rejected the possibility that the use of a weapon or the seriousness of the injury could be used to (1) prove guilt, (2) find dangerousness and (3) aggravate the sentence. 209 Ariz. at 485, ¶ 38 , 104 P.3d at 216 . [4] Henderson expressly mandated: "To the extent that any prior decisions are inconsistent with today's holding, we disapprove of them." 210 Ariz. at | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578 , 583 ¶ 16, 115 P.3d 618, 623 (2005) (finding no Sixth Amendment violation when one aggravating factor is Blakely-compliant and others are found by sentencing judge). 9 ¶ 37 The jury, however, was neither asked to determine how much force was necessary to accomplish the kidnapping nor to decide when that force was exerted. 2005See State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578 , 583 ¶ 16, 115 P.3d 618, 623 (2005) (finding no Sixth Amendment violation when one aggravating factor is Blakely-compliant and others are found by sentencing judge). 9 ¶ 37 The jury, however, was neither asked to determine how much force was necessary to accomplish the kidnapping nor to decide when that force was exerted. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ringgreen2 sentences2003State v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267 , 272 ¶ 13, 25 P.3d 1139, 1144 (2001) ( Ring I ). 2003State v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267 , 272 ¶ 13, 25 P.3d 1139, 1144 (2001) ( Ring I ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2001State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 189 , 920 P.2d 290, 311 (1996); State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 489 , 917 P.2d 200, 218 (1996). ¶ 45 At sentencing, the trial court concluded that defendant’s mitigation evidence failed to outweigh the two aggravating factors associated with Iler’s murder. 2001State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 189 , 920 P.2d 290, 311 (1996); State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 489 , 917 P.2d 200, 218 (1996). ¶ 45 At sentencing, the trial court concluded that defendant’s mitigation evidence failed to outweigh the two aggravating factors associated with Iler’s murder. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Towerygreen2 sentences2001State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 189 , 920 P.2d 290, 311 (1996); State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 489 , 917 P.2d 200, 218 (1996). ¶ 45 At sentencing, the trial court concluded that defendant’s mitigation evidence failed to outweigh the two aggravating factors associated with Iler’s murder. 2001State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 189 , 920 P.2d 290, 311 (1996); State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 489 , 917 P.2d 200, 218 (1996). ¶ 45 At sentencing, the trial court concluded that defendant’s mitigation evidence failed to outweigh the two aggravating factors associated with Iler’s murder. | 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. Henderson
green
2 sentences2006Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 20 , 115 P.3d at 607 . ¶ 15 We conclude that any error in the instructions would not have prejudiced Ur-quidez because the two aggravating factors found by the jury were not subject to meaningful factual dispute. 2006Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 20 , 115 P.3d at 607 . ¶ 15 We conclude that any error in the instructions would not have prejudiced Ur-quidez because the two aggravating factors found by the jury were not subject to meaningful factual dispute. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Ring
green
2 sentences2004Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 94, 65 P.3d at 944 . a. ¶ 53 Under Arizona law, there are two aggravating circumstances for prior criminal convictions, A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(1) and (F)(2). 2004Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 94, 65 P.3d at 944 . a. ¶ 53 Under Arizona law, there are two aggravating circumstances for prior criminal convictions, A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(1) and (F)(2). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.