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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012And even after the United States Supreme Court ruled defendants have a right to have aggravating factors decided by a jury in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 303-04 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the legislature did not amend the statute to expressly limit diminished capacity evidence from being presented in a jury trial on aggravating factors. 2012And even after the United States Supreme Court ruled defendants have a right to have aggravating factors decided by a jury in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 303-04 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the legislature did not amend the statute to expressly limit diminished capacity evidence from being presented in a jury trial on aggravating factors. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2012See State v. Garcia, 227 Ariz. 377, ¶ 15 , 258 P.3d 195, 198-99 (App.2011) (legislature “free to amend” statute to reflect its intent). ¶ 15 Thus, as demonstrated by the language of the statute and our supreme court’s interpretation of it, to the extent the evidence here constitutes evidence of diminished capacity, the legislature only intended to preclude such evidence when a defendant attempts to use it to negate his or her responsibility for a crime in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial. 2012See State v. Garcia, 227 Ariz. 377, ¶ 15 , 258 P.3d 195, 198-99 (App.2011) (legislature “free to amend” statute to reflect its intent). ¶ 15 Thus, as demonstrated by the language of the statute and our supreme court’s interpretation of it, to the extent the evidence here constitutes evidence of diminished capacity, the legislature only intended to preclude such evidence when a defendant attempts to use it to negate his or her responsibility for a crime in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Landrigangreen2 sentences1996This argument was rejected in State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 6 , 859 P.2d 111, 116 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 927 , 114 S.Ct. 334 , 126 L.Ed.2d 279 (1993). 1996This argument was rejected in State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 6 , 859 P.2d 111, 116 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 927 , 114 S.Ct. 334 , 126 L.Ed.2d 279 (1993). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever 2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever | 1 | 1 |
State v. Offinggreen2 sentences2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever 2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrengreen2 sentences2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever 2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever | 1 | 1 |
State v. Porrasgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever 2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cochrangreen2 sentences2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever 2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mankelgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever 2007See State v. Brown, 212 Ariz. 225, 231, ¶¶ 26, 29 , 129 P.3d 947, 953 (2006) (remanding for a sentencing hearing because *123 defendant did not appropriately waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors); State v. Offing, 113 Ariz. 287, 288 , 551 P.2d 556, 557 (1976) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not affirmatively show that defendant knew he was giving up jury trial right); Cochran, 109 Ariz. at 328 , 509 P.2d at 221 (reversing and remanding for new trial based upon ineffective waiver by defense counsel); Smith, 197 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d at 394 (rever | 1 | 1 |
State v. Le Noblegreen2 sentences2007But see Ritchey, 107 Ariz. at 554 , 490 P.2d at 561 (remanded to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the defendant had ratified the action of his attorney in waiving jury trial rights); Le Noble, 216 Ariz. at 185, ¶ 20 , 164 P.3d at 691 . 3 ¶ 22 Decisions from other jurisdictions also support our conclusion that Baker is entitled to a new trial. 2007But see Ritchey, 107 Ariz. at 554 , 490 P.2d at 561 (remanded to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the defendant had ratified the action of his attorney in waiving jury trial rights); Le Noble, 216 Ariz. at 185, ¶ 20 , 164 P.3d at 691 . 3 ¶ 22 Decisions from other jurisdictions also support our conclusion that Baker is entitled to a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spencergreen2 sentences1994No. See State v. Spencer, 176 Ariz. 36, 45 , 859 P.2d 146, 155 (1993) citing State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 6 , 859 P.2d 111, 116 (1993) (equal protection not violated because jury determines aggravating factors in non-capital cases whereas judge makes determination in capital cases). 12. 1994No. See State v. Spencer, 176 Ariz. 36, 45 , 859 P.2d 146, 155 (1993) citing State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 6 , 859 P.2d 111, 116 (1993) (equal protection not violated because jury determines aggravating factors in non-capital cases whereas judge makes determination in capital cases). 12. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ritcheygreen2 sentences2007But see Ritchey, 107 Ariz. at 554 , 490 P.2d at 561 (remanded to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the defendant had ratified the action of his attorney in waiving jury trial rights); Le Noble, 216 Ariz. at 185, ¶ 20 , 164 P.3d at 691 . 3 ¶ 22 Decisions from other jurisdictions also support our conclusion that Baker is entitled to a new trial. 2007But see Ritchey, 107 Ariz. at 554 , 490 P.2d at 561 (remanded to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the defendant had ratified the action of his attorney in waiving jury trial rights); Le Noble, 216 Ariz. at 185, ¶ 20 , 164 P.3d at 691 . 3 ¶ 22 Decisions from other jurisdictions also support our conclusion that Baker is entitled to a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ring
green
2 sentences2011State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 , 65 P.3d 915 (2003). 2011State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 , 65 P.3d 915 (2003). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Cotton
green
2 sentences2003Substantial differences exist between a defendant's decision to concede an aggravating circumstance and a defendant's decision not to contest an aggravating circumstance, and we distinguish between those situations. ¶ 92 In United States v. Cotton , the Supreme Court reviewed a case in which the defendant did not contest an element responsible for his sentence enhancement. 535 U.S. 625 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). 2003Substantial differences exist between a defendant's decision to concede an aggravating circumstance and a defendant's decision not to contest an aggravating circumstance, and we distinguish between those situations. ¶ 92 In United States v. Cotton , the Supreme Court reviewed a case in which the defendant did not contest an element responsible for his sentence enhancement. 535 U.S. 625 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Robles v. United States
green
2 sentences1996This argument was rejected in State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 6 , 859 P.2d 111, 116 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 927 , 114 S.Ct. 334 , 126 L.Ed.2d 279 (1993). 1996This argument was rejected in State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 6 , 859 P.2d 111, 116 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 927 , 114 S.Ct. 334 , 126 L.Ed.2d 279 (1993). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.