Arizona Supreme Court· 2/23/1999

State v. Smith

Citations

974 P.2d 431
193 Ariz. 452
290 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
1999 Ariz. LEXIS 16

How courts have described this case

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

holding that officer’s response, “What meth?”, to defendant’s comment that he had recently used methamphetamine did not constitute interrogation because the officer’s statements “were not made ... with the expectation that they would lead to incriminating statements by the defendant.”
finding right to counsel waived when a defendant initially requested a lawyer, but subsequently volunteered information after saying “I don’t see why I shouldn’t just tell you”
“[T]he age of the victim is relevant to an inquiry into the defendant’s characteristics and propensities. Those who prey on the very young or the very old are more dangerous to society.”
\[T]he legislature determined that the young and old are especially vulnerable and should be protected. It is not irrational for the legislature to conclude that murders of children and the elderly are more abhorrent than other first-degree murders.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Martone, Zlaket, Jones, Feldman, McGregor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

32 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.