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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizonagreen2 sentences2016The Allens relied upon Sanchez , in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court must grant a defendant’s request for a Chronis hearing even if the grand jury has made a previous probable cause determination on the State’s alleged aggravating circumstances. 234 Ariz. at 254 ¶¶ 13-14, 321 P.3d at 419 . 2016The Allens relied upon Sanchez , in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court must grant a defendant’s request for a Chronis hearing even if the grand jury has made a previous probable cause determination on the State’s alleged aggravating circumstances. 234 Ariz. at 254 ¶¶ 13-14, 321 P.3d at 419 . | 3 | 3 |
Chronis v. Steinlegreen2 sentences2016In Chronis, we held that Rule 13.5(c) entitles a defendant to request the trial court to determine, based on an evidentiary hearing, if probable cause exists to support the alleged aggravators. 220 Ariz. at 563 ¶ 20, 208 P.3d at 214 . ¶8 We subsequently ruled in Sanchez that a defendant is entitled to a Chronis hearing with respect to the state’s alleged aggravating circumstances even if a grand jury has found that they are supported by probable cause. 234 Ariz. at 251–52 ¶ 1, 321 P.3d at 416–17. 2016In Chronis, we held that Rule 13.5(c) entitles a defendant to request the trial court to determine, based on an evidentiary hearing, if probable cause exists to support the alleged aggravators. 220 Ariz. at 563 ¶ 20, 208 P.3d at 214 . ¶8 We subsequently ruled in Sanchez that a defendant is entitled to a Chronis hearing with respect to the state’s alleged aggravating circumstances even if a grand jury has found that they are supported by probable cause. 234 Ariz. at 251–52 ¶ 1, 321 P.3d at 416–17. | 1 | 4 |
Sanchez v. Ainleygreen2 sentences2014AINLEY (STATE) OPINION OF THE COURT probable-cause determination of aggravators cannot deprive a defendant of a Chronis hearing, id. at 21 ¶ 31, 308 P.3d at 1172 . ¶8 A grand jury is an investigative body “whose mission is to bring to trial those who may be guilty and [to] clear the innocent.” Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 264 , 560 P.2d 778, 782 (1977). 2014AINLEY (STATE) OPINION OF THE COURT probable-cause determination of aggravators cannot deprive a defendant of a Chronis hearing, id. at 21 ¶ 31, 308 P.3d at 1172 . ¶8 A grand jury is an investigative body “whose mission is to bring to trial those who may be guilty and [to] clear the innocent.” Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 264 , 560 P.2d 778, 782 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Ring v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2014Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 494 n.9 (2000). 2014Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 494 n.9 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2014Cf. State v. Allen, 111 Ariz. 125, 126 , 524 P.2d 502, 503 (1974) (“Statutes authorizing the infliction of a more severe penalty on one who is a persistent offender do not create a new, separate, distinct, independent, or substantive offense.”); A.R.S. § 13-751(F) (providing that aggravating circumstances are considered in “determining whether to impose a sentence of death”). ¶9 The State argues, however, that A.R.S. §§ 21-407 and -413 authorize grand jurors to find probable cause to support alleged aggravating circumstances, thereby mooting the defendant’s Chronis hearing request, because the 2014Cf. State v. Allen, 111 Ariz. 125, 126 , 524 P.2d 502, 503 (1974) (“Statutes authorizing the infliction of a more severe penalty on one who is a persistent offender do not create a new, separate, distinct, independent, or substantive offense.”); A.R.S. § 13-751(F) (providing that aggravating circumstances are considered in “determining whether to impose a sentence of death”). ¶9 The State argues, however, that A.R.S. §§ 21-407 and -413 authorize grand jurors to find probable cause to support alleged aggravating circumstances, thereby mooting the defendant’s Chronis hearing request, because the | 1 | 1 |
Marston's, Inc. v. Strandgreen2 sentences2014AINLEY (STATE) OPINION OF THE COURT probable-cause determination of aggravators cannot deprive a defendant of a Chronis hearing, id. at 21 ¶ 31, 308 P.3d at 1172 . ¶8 A grand jury is an investigative body “whose mission is to bring to trial those who may be guilty and [to] clear the innocent.” Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 264 , 560 P.2d 778, 782 (1977). 2014AINLEY (STATE) OPINION OF THE COURT probable-cause determination of aggravators cannot deprive a defendant of a Chronis hearing, id. at 21 ¶ 31, 308 P.3d at 1172 . ¶8 A grand jury is an investigative body “whose mission is to bring to trial those who may be guilty and [to] clear the innocent.” Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 264 , 560 P.2d 778, 782 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
McKaney v. Foremangreen2 sentences2013Certain precautions may be necessary to ensure that all applicable rights are protected, see McKaney, 209 Ariz. at 272 -73 ¶ 21, 100 P.3d at 22-23 (questioning whether a grand jury would need to be “death-qualified” and could hear evidence of aggravating circumstances only after determining probable cause of the underlying crime), 2 but grand juries are competent to determine probable cause on aggravating circumstances. ¶ 19 Sanchez also argues — and our dissenting colleague agrees — that a grand jury’s determination of probable cause is inadequate because it does not provide him with the same 2013Certain precautions may be necessary to ensure that all applicable rights are protected, see McKaney, 209 Ariz. at 272 -73 ¶ 21, 100 P.3d at 22-23 (questioning whether a grand jury would need to be “death-qualified” and could hear evidence of aggravating circumstances only after determining probable cause of the underlying crime), 2 but grand juries are competent to determine probable cause on aggravating circumstances. ¶ 19 Sanchez also argues — and our dissenting colleague agrees — that a grand jury’s determination of probable cause is inadequate because it does not provide him with the same | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sisnerosgreen2 sentences2013State v. Sisneros, 137 Ariz. 323, 326 , 670 P.2d 721, 724 (1983). 2013State v. Sisneros, 137 Ariz. 323, 326 , 670 P.2d 721, 724 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nicholsgreen1 sentence2025But see State v. Nichols, 201 Ariz. 234, ¶¶ 13-15 (App. 2001) (allegation of serious drug offense enhancement must be provided no later than twenty days before trial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Birdsall
green
2 sentences2016The Arizona Supreme Court rejected that approach, noting that “[sjince it is the duty of a grand jury to charge only public offenses, they have no authority to add allegations to the indictment which are concerned with punishment, and do not charge a public offense.” 234 Ariz. at 253, ¶ 11 , 321 P.3d 415 (quoting State v. Birdsall, 116 Ariz. 112, 113-14 , 568 P.2d 419 (1977)). 2016The Arizona Supreme Court rejected that approach, noting that “[sjince it is the duty of a grand jury to charge only public offenses, they have no authority to add allegations to the indictment which are concerned with punishment, and do not charge a public offense.” 234 Ariz. at 253, ¶ 11 , 321 P.3d 415 (quoting State v. Birdsall, 116 Ariz. 112, 113-14 , 568 P.2d 419 (1977)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2014Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 494 n.9 (2000). 2014Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 494 n.9 (2000). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.