proffered mitigating factors (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

proffered mitigating factors in Arizona

5 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1990–1993 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Jeffers v. Rickettsgreen
azd · 1986 · cited in 5 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1990–1993
2 sentences

1993Although the trial court must consider all evidence offered by the defendant in mitigation, “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should he given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 832 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1987), rev’d, 497 U.S. 764 , 110 S.Ct. 3092 , 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990).

1993Although the trial court must consider all evidence offered by the defendant in mitigation, “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should be given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986).

45
State v. Fierroagreen
ariz · 1990 · cited in 4 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1992–1993
2 sentences

1993Although the trial court must consider all evidence offered by the defendant in mitigation, “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should be given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986).

1993Although the trial court must consider all evidence offered by the defendant in mitigation, “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should be given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986).

34
State v. McCallgreen
ariz · 1983 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992In “taking into account” the mitigating circumstances, the sentencing court must consider “any aspect of the defendant’s character or record and any circumstance of the offense relevant to determining whether a sentence less. than death might be appropriate,” State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 162 , 677 P.2d 920, 935 (1983), but “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should be given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986), aff'd in part, rev’d in pa

1992In “taking into account” the mitigating circumstances, the sentencing court must consider “any aspect of the defendant’s character or record and any circumstance of the offense relevant to determining whether a sentence less. than death might be appropriate,” State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 162 , 677 P.2d 920, 935 (1983), but “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should be given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986), aff'd in part, rev’d in pa

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Jimmie Wayne Jeffers v. James R. Ricketts, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison green
ca9 · 1987
2 sentences

1993Although the trial court must consider all evidence offered by the defendant in mitigation, “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should he given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 832 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1987), rev’d, 497 U.S. 764 , 110 S.Ct. 3092 , 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990).

1992Although the trial judge must consider all mitigating evidence proffered by the defendant, "it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should be given to the proffered mitigating factors." Id., citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F. Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz. 1986), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 832 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1987), rev'd, 497 U.S. 764 , 110 S.Ct. 3092 , 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990).

41990–1993
Lewis v. Jeffers green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

1993Although the trial court must consider all evidence offered by the defendant in mitigation, “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should he given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 832 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1987), rev’d, 497 U.S. 764 , 110 S.Ct. 3092 , 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990).

1993Although the trial court must consider all evidence offered by the defendant in mitigation, “it is within the discretion of the trial judge how much weight should he given to the proffered mitigating factors.” State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 551 , 804 P.2d 72, 84 (1990), citing Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334, 1357 (D.Ariz.1986), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 832 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1987), rev’d, 497 U.S. 764 , 110 S.Ct. 3092 , 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990).

31992–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4031 (5) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703 (5) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1105 (4) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1304 (3) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033 (3)

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

IN 6 (2004–2020) AZ 5 (1990–1993) NY 3 (2023–2026) NJ 2 (1990–2021) KS 2 (2020–2020)

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