52 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2022 2 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. Gilliesgreen2 sentences1993Finally, giving a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 513 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983) (quoting State v. Zaragosa, 135 Ariz. 63 , 659 P.2d 22 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). 1993Finally, giving a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 513 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983) (quoting State v. Zaragosa, 135 Ariz. 63 , 659 P.2d 22 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Schadgreen2 sentences1992We have held that “[t]he giving of a felony-murder instruction is a mitigating circumstance only where there is some doubt as to defendant’s specific intent to kill the victim.” Gillies I, 135 Ariz. at 513, 662 P.2d at 1020 (emphasis added), citing State v. Schad, 129 Ariz. 557, 573-74 , 633 P.2d 366, 382-83 (1981). 1992We have held that “[t]he giving of a felony-murder instruction is a mitigating circumstance only where there is some doubt as to defendant’s specific intent to kill the victim.” Gillies I, 135 Ariz. at 513, 662 P.2d at 1020 (emphasis added), citing State v. Schad, 129 Ariz. 557, 573-74 , 633 P.2d 366, 382-83 (1981). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Essmangreen2 sentences1991Defendant relies upon State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965), for the proposition that the felony murder doctrine does not apply where the underlying felony is an offense included in the charge of homicide. 1991Defendant relies upon State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965), for the proposition that the felony murder doctrine does not apply where the underlying felony is an offense included in the charge of homicide. | 2 | 6 |
State v. McLoughlingreen2 sentences2022See State v. McLoughlin, 139 Ariz. 481, 486 (1984) (“It is not unconstitutional for the Arizona Legislature to mandate that an individual who causes the death of another while seeking to accomplish one of several enumerated felonies, each of which requires a showing of intent and/or knowledge for conviction, be subject to the same criminal charges and punishment as a person who causes the death of another person with premeditation.”); State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 21, 30 (1993) (“Arizona’s felony murder rule is not unconstitutional.”); see also State v. (Thomas) West, 176 Ariz. 432, 445 (1993) ( 1993McLoughlin, 139 Ariz. at 485-86 , 679 P.2d at 508-09 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Goodsealgreen2 sentences1987The basis was supplied in State v. Celaya, supra , wherein we noted: "The felony-murder rule, designed as it is to protect human life, represents sound public policy, is reasonably related to the end sought to be accomplished, and is not constitutionally impermissible." 135 Ariz. at 255 , 660 P.2d at 856 (quoting State v. Goodseal, 220 Kan. 487, 494 , 553 P.2d 279, 286 (1976)). *31 GRUESOME PHOTOGRAPHS Appellant next argues that the trial court erred by admitting state's exhibits 66 and 67 over objection. 1987The basis was supplied in State v. Celaya, supra , wherein we noted: "The felony-murder rule, designed as it is to protect human life, represents sound public policy, is reasonably related to the end sought to be accomplished, and is not constitutionally impermissible." 135 Ariz. at 255 , 660 P.2d at 856 (quoting State v. Goodseal, 220 Kan. 487, 494 , 553 P.2d 279, 286 (1976)). *31 GRUESOME PHOTOGRAPHS Appellant next argues that the trial court erred by admitting state's exhibits 66 and 67 over objection. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vickersgreen2 sentences1984See State v. Vickers, 138 Ariz. 450 , 675 P.2d 710 [1983]. 1984See State v. Vickers, 138 Ariz. 450 , 675 P.2d 710 [1983]. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Richmondgreen2 sentences1983“When the felony is so entwined with the murder that it is part of that murder we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting the felony-murder rule.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 190 , 560 P.2d 41, 45 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[A] person engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery which calls into action defensive forces against him the activity of which results in the death of a human bein 1983“When the felony is so entwined with the murder that it is part of that murder we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting the felony-murder rule.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 190 , 560 P.2d 41, 45 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[A] person engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery which calls into action defensive forces against him the activity of which results in the death of a human bein | 2 | 2 |
State v. Celayagreen2 sentences2022See State v. McLoughlin, 139 Ariz. 481, 486 (1984) (“It is not unconstitutional for the Arizona Legislature to mandate that an individual who causes the death of another while seeking to accomplish one of several enumerated felonies, each of which requires a showing of intent and/or knowledge for conviction, be subject to the same criminal charges and punishment as a person who causes the death of another person with premeditation.”); State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 21, 30 (1993) (“Arizona’s felony murder rule is not unconstitutional.”); see also State v. (Thomas) West, 176 Ariz. 432, 445 (1993) ( 1987The basis was supplied in State v. Celaya, supra , wherein we noted: "The felony-murder rule, designed as it is to protect human life, represents sound public policy, is reasonably related to the end sought to be accomplished, and is not constitutionally impermissible." 135 Ariz. at 255 , 660 P.2d at 856 (quoting State v. Goodseal, 220 Kan. 487, 494 , 553 P.2d 279, 286 (1976)). *31 GRUESOME PHOTOGRAPHS Appellant next argues that the trial court erred by admitting state's exhibits 66 and 67 over objection. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Zaragozagreen2 sentences1996Felony Murder Instruction The giving of a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 117 , 865 P.2d 765, 778 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 855 , 115 S.Ct. 159 , 130 L.Ed.2d 97 (1994) (quoting State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 70 , 659 P.2d 22, 29 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). 1996Felony Murder Instruction The giving of a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 117 , 865 P.2d 765, 778 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 855 , 115 S.Ct. 159 , 130 L.Ed.2d 97 (1994) (quoting State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 70 , 659 P.2d 22, 29 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Ariasgreen2 sentences1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. 1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Richmondgreen2 sentences1987See State v. Richmond, 112 Ariz. 228, 232 , 540 P.2d 700, 704 (1975) (in dealing with the felony murder rule, “we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature”). 1987See State v. Richmond, 112 Ariz. 228, 232 , 540 P.2d 700, 704 (1975) (in dealing with the felony murder rule, “we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Westgreen1 sentence2022See State v. McLoughlin, 139 Ariz. 481, 486 (1984) (“It is not unconstitutional for the Arizona Legislature to mandate that an individual who causes the death of another while seeking to accomplish one of several enumerated felonies, each of which requires a showing of intent and/or knowledge for conviction, be subject to the same criminal charges and punishment as a person who causes the death of another person with premeditation.”); State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 21, 30 (1993) (“Arizona’s felony murder rule is not unconstitutional.”); see also State v. (Thomas) West, 176 Ariz. 432, 445 (1993) ( | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2022See State v. McLoughlin, 139 Ariz. 481, 486 (1984) (“It is not unconstitutional for the Arizona Legislature to mandate that an individual who causes the death of another while seeking to accomplish one of several enumerated felonies, each of which requires a showing of intent and/or knowledge for conviction, be subject to the same criminal charges and punishment as a person who causes the death of another person with premeditation.”); State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 21, 30 (1993) (“Arizona’s felony murder rule is not unconstitutional.”); see also State v. (Thomas) West, 176 Ariz. 432, 445 (1993) ( | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Herrera, Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Garciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pattersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Head v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rutledgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Atwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Henrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Styersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gendrongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vallesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Correllgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Roscoegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Villafuertegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Garcia v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dufour v. Mississippigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Howesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greenawaltgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ferrarigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lockettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bizup v. Peoplegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Payne v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Enmund v. Florida
green
2 sentences2006The state conceded that, because some of the murder convictions were based on the felony-murder doctrine rather than premeditated murder, “a jury must find whether [Nordstrom] qualifies for the death penalty under the Enmund-Tison line of cases.” See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987); En-mund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). 3 It further conceded the jury must weigh the aggravating factors against any mitigating factors found and then determine whether Nord-strom should be sentenced to death. ¶ 7 After Nordstrom filed his 2006The state conceded that, because some of the murder convictions were based on the felony-murder doctrine rather than premeditated murder, “a jury must find whether [Nordstrom] qualifies for the death penalty under the Enmund-Tison line of cases.” See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987); En-mund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). 3 It further conceded the jury must weigh the aggravating factors against any mitigating factors found and then determine whether Nord-strom should be sentenced to death. ¶ 7 After Nordstrom filed his | 4 | 1983–2006 |
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. 1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. | 3 | 1984–1984 |
Dankert v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. 1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. | 3 | 1984–1984 |
Johnson ex rel. Rossiello v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. 1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. | 3 | 1984–1984 |
Florey v. Sioux Falls School District 49-5
green
2 sentences1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. 1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. | 3 | 1984–1984 |
Tison v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006The state conceded that, because some of the murder convictions were based on the felony-murder doctrine rather than premeditated murder, “a jury must find whether [Nordstrom] qualifies for the death penalty under the Enmund-Tison line of cases.” See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987); En-mund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). 3 It further conceded the jury must weigh the aggravating factors against any mitigating factors found and then determine whether Nord-strom should be sentenced to death. ¶ 7 After Nordstrom filed his 2006The state conceded that, because some of the murder convictions were based on the felony-murder doctrine rather than premeditated murder, “a jury must find whether [Nordstrom] qualifies for the death penalty under the Enmund-Tison line of cases.” See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987); En-mund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). 3 It further conceded the jury must weigh the aggravating factors against any mitigating factors found and then determine whether Nord-strom should be sentenced to death. ¶ 7 After Nordstrom filed his | 2 | 2006–2012 |
In re Green
green
2 sentences1996Felony Murder Instruction The giving of a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 117 , 865 P.2d 765, 778 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 855 , 115 S.Ct. 159 , 130 L.Ed.2d 97 (1994) (quoting State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 70 , 659 P.2d 22, 29 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). 1993Finally, giving a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 513 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983) (quoting State v. Zaragosa, 135 Ariz. 63 , 659 P.2d 22 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). | 2 | 1993–1996 |
Grenada Bank v. Willey
green
2 sentences1996Felony Murder Instruction The giving of a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 117 , 865 P.2d 765, 778 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 855 , 115 S.Ct. 159 , 130 L.Ed.2d 97 (1994) (quoting State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 70 , 659 P.2d 22, 29 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). 1993Finally, giving a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 513 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983) (quoting State v. Zaragosa, 135 Ariz. 63 , 659 P.2d 22 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). | 2 | 1993–1996 |
Magwood v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1996Felony Murder Instruction The giving of a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 117 , 865 P.2d 765, 778 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 855 , 115 S.Ct. 159 , 130 L.Ed.2d 97 (1994) (quoting State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 70 , 659 P.2d 22, 29 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). 1993Finally, giving a felony murder instruction “is not relevant “where the defendant intended to kill the victim or where the defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death.’ ” State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 513 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983) (quoting State v. Zaragosa, 135 Ariz. 63 , 659 P.2d 22 , cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983)). | 2 | 1993–1996 |
State v. McDaniel
green
2 sentences1984In State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188 , 665 P.2d 70 (1983) we invoked Enmund to require specific findings whenev er a defendant may have been convicted of capital murder pursuant to a felony murder instruction. 1984In State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188 , 665 P.2d 70 (1983) we invoked Enmund to require specific findings whenev er a defendant may have been convicted of capital murder pursuant to a felony murder instruction. | 2 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Woratzeck
green
2 sentences1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. 1984Though the felony-murder doctrine does not require a specific intent to kill to support a first-degree murder conviction, State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452 , 657 P.2d 865 (1982); State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441 , 641 P.2d 1285 (1982); State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283 , 614 P.2d 825 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986 , 101 S.Ct. 408 , 66 L.Ed.2d 251 (1980), it does require proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony. | 2 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Hitchcock
green
2 sentences1983“When the felony is so entwined with the murder that it is part of that murder we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting the felony-murder rule.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 190 , 560 P.2d 41, 45 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[A] person engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery which calls into action defensive forces against him the activity of which results in the death of a human bein 1983“When the felony is so entwined with the murder that it is part of that murder we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting the felony-murder rule.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 190 , 560 P.2d 41, 45 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[A] person engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery which calls into action defensive forces against him the activity of which results in the death of a human bein | 2 | 1975–1983 |
Heublein, Inc. v. Waters
green
2 sentences1983“When the felony is so entwined with the murder that it is part of that murder we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting the felony-murder rule.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 190 , 560 P.2d 41, 45 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[A] person engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery which calls into action defensive forces against him the activity of which results in the death of a human bein 1981Cf. State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976) (for purposes of the felony-murder rule, flight from the felony is legally a part of the felony transaction), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[W]e will not hold a stopwatch on the events” of the murder “to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting” A.R.S. § 13-703(F). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Broncucia v. Colorado
green
2 sentences1983“When the felony is so entwined with the murder that it is part of that murder we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting the felony-murder rule.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 190 , 560 P.2d 41, 45 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[A] person engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery which calls into action defensive forces against him the activity of which results in the death of a human bein 1981Cf. State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976) (for purposes of the felony-murder rule, flight from the felony is legally a part of the felony transaction), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[W]e will not hold a stopwatch on the events” of the murder “to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting” A.R.S. § 13-703(F). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Marriott Corp. v. Richard
green
2 sentences1983“When the felony is so entwined with the murder that it is part of that murder we will not hold a stopwatch on the events or artificially break down the actions of the defendant into separate components in order to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting the felony-murder rule.” State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186, 190 , 560 P.2d 41, 45 (1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[A] person engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery which calls into action defensive forces against him the activity of which results in the death of a human bein 1981Cf. State v. Richmond, 114 Ariz. 186 , 560 P.2d 41 (1976) (for purposes of the felony-murder rule, flight from the felony is legally a part of the felony transaction), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 915 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977). “[W]e will not hold a stopwatch on the events” of the murder “to avoid the clear intent of the legislature in enacting” A.R.S. § 13-703(F). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Strouth v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences1983State v. Schad, 129 Ariz. 557, 574 , 633 P.2d 366, 383 (1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 983 , 102 S.Ct. 1492 , 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982)." State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 513 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983). 1983State v. Schad, 129 Ariz. 557, 574 , 633 P.2d 366, 383 (1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 983 , 102 S.Ct. 1492 , 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982).” State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 513 , 662 P.2d 1007, 1020 (1983). | 2 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Stroud
green
1 sentence2022ALLEN Opinion of the Court ¶99 “View[ing] the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict and resolving all inferences against [the defendant],” Stroud, 209 Ariz. at 412 ¶ 6, the record contains substantial evidence to support Sammantha’s conviction on Count 3, as an equally culpable participant. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Schad green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Irving Sheppard v. Robert Rees green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Marchesano green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Guzman v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Andrisani v. Saugus Colony Ltd. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Chapple red | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Bolton green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. King green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Laney green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Fling neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Robert Earl Pryor v. James H. Rose, Warden green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Film Transit, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, and Mistletoe Express Service, Intervening green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Robert Earl Pryor v. James H. Rose, Warden green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Jimenez green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Foy green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| United States v. Herbert Ott green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Miniefield green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Valencia green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Lujan green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Pittman green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Arnett green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Lockett v. Ohio green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.