Arizona Supreme Court· 1/28/1999

State v. Sharp

Citations

973 P.2d 1171
193 Ariz. 414
288 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 36
1999 Ariz. LEXIS 7

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding the discretion afforded to prosecutors under Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme does not violate the Eighth Amendment
“Fulfilling the state action requirement is essential because the protections contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and by incorporation of the Fifth Amendment, apply only to state actors, not to private parties.”
“Fulfilling the state action requirement is essential because the protections contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and by incorporation of the Fifth Amendment, apply only to state actors, not to private parties.”
explaining, in case involving a defendant who claimed that he had been regularly sodomized by his stepbrother over a period of eight years, that Arizona courts “require a causal connection to justify considering evidence of a defendant’s background as a mitigating circumstance”
(G)(1) not proven where defendant attempted to hide evidence that might link him to the crime
“[W]e require a causal connection to justify considering evidence of a defendant’s background as a mitigating circumstance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McGregor, Zlazet, Jones, Feldman, Martone

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.