Enmund test in Arizona

7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1984–1994 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Enmund v. Floridagreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984Id. at 828 , 102 S.Ct. at 3393 (emphasis supplied). 1984Id. at 828 , 102 S.Ct. at 3393 (emphasis supplied).	2	2
Cabana v. Bullockgreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1989–1991 2 sentences 1991In Cabana v. Bullock, the Supreme Court held that the Enmund rule is a “substantive limitation on sentencing, and like other such limits it need not be enforced by the jury.” 474 U.S. 376, 386 , 106 S.Ct. 689, 697 , 88 L.Ed.2d 704, 716 (1986). 1991In Cabana v. Bullock, the Supreme Court held that the Enmund rule is a “substantive limitation on sentencing, and like other such limits it need not be enforced by the jury.” 474 U.S. 376, 386 , 106 S.Ct. 689, 697 , 88 L.Ed.2d 704, 716 (1986).	1	2
State v. Atwoodgreen ariz · 1992 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 649-50 , 832 P.2d at 666-67 . 1993See State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 649-50 , 832 P.2d at 666-67 .	1	1
State v. McDanielgreen ariz · 1983 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989See State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 199 , 665 P.2d 70, 81 (1983). 1989See State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 199 , 665 P.2d 70, 81 (1983).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Ruffin v. State green fla · 1982 2 sentences 1984Also, in Ruffin v. State, 420 So.2d 591 (Fla.1982), as in the instant case, the defendant assisted in the abduction, was present at the killing, made no effort to interfere, and continued on the joint venture, using the victim’s automobile. 1984Also, in Ruffin v. State, 420 So.2d 591 (Fla.1982), as in the instant case, the defendant assisted in the abduction, was present at the killing, made no effort to interfere, and continued on the joint venture, using the victim’s automobile.	2	1984–1984
State v. Gillies green ariz · 1983 2 sentences 1984In contrast, in State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500 , 662 P.2d 1007 (1983), in which the Enmund requirement was satisfied, the defendant, as in the instant case, 1) actively participated in the events leading to the death of the victim by assisting in her abduction, transporting her to the murder site, and providing the instrument used to kill the victim, 2) was present at all times during the murder, and 3) did nothing to interfere. 1984In contrast, in State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500 , 662 P.2d 1007 (1983), in which the Enmund requirement was satisfied, the defendant, as in the instant case, 1) actively participated in the events leading to the death of the victim by assisting in her abduction, transporting her to the murder site, and providing the instrument used to kill the victim, 2) was present at all times during the murder, and 3) did nothing to interfere.	2	1984–1984
State v. Richmond green ariz · 1983 2 sentences 1994This court purported to conduct an independent Enmund analysis in 1983, after which the majority stated that "the trial judge was justified in concluding that appellant drove the vehicle that was used to kill the victim.” Richmond II, 136 Ariz. at 318 , 666 P.2d at 63 . 1994This court purported to conduct an independent Enmund analysis in 1983, after which the majority stated that "the trial judge was justified in concluding that appellant drove the vehicle that was used to kill the victim.” Richmond II, 136 Ariz. at 318 , 666 P.2d at 63 .	1	1994–1994
Tison v. Arizona green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 1989Lastly, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Enmund , the Court issued Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), which alters the Enmund analysis. 1989Lastly, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Enmund , the Court issued Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), which alters the Enmund analysis.	1	1989–1989
State v. Richmond green ariz · 1976 2 sentences 1989Richmond I, 114 Ariz. at 196 , 560 P.2d at 51 . 1989Richmond I, 114 Ariz. at 196 , 560 P.2d at 51 .	1	1989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703 (7) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4031 (4) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

MS 29 (1987–2015) FL 10 (1984–2018) CA 8 (1983–2020) NC 7 (1983–2024) AZ 7 (1984–1994) OK 6 (1994–2001) TX 2 (1992–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance