Cited by

Thus, when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we simply test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense.” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense.” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

In conducting our review, "we compare the evidence 'against the statutorily required elements of the offense,'" ¶ 22 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2005)), and do not "reweigh the evidence to decide if [we] would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact,"

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, [the court] compare[s] the evidence ‘against the statutorily required elements of the offense.’” ¶ 22 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2005)).

This court views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, ¶ 87 (2004) (citing cases), testing the sufficiency of the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we compare the evidence ‘against the statutorily required elements of the offense.’” ¶ 22 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2005)).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

¶ 7 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).

Substantial evidence is “such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 7 (App. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

3 STATE v. JUNIEL Decision of the Court ¶12 We do not reweigh the evidence to decide if we would have reached the same conclusion as the trier of fact; instead, “we test the evidence ‘against the statutorily required elements of the offense.’” Aguirre, 255 Ariz. at 92, ¶ 8 ( ¶ 8 (App. 2005)).

¶26 ¶ 23 (App. 2005), to conclude that omitting the lack of remorse aggravator changes the “sentencing calculus” and therefore his sentence could have been different.

¶18 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting 6 STATE v. MCKINNEY Decision of the Court evidence nor assess witnesses’ credibility, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

is court views the evidence in the light 8 STATE v. DAVIS Decision of the Court most favorable to sustaining the verdict, ¶ 87 (2004) (citing cases), testing the sufficiency of the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

Sufficient evidence may exist even where conflicting evidence is presented, and may be circumstantial or direct, ¶ 7 (App. 2005).

Further, in conducting our review, we compare the evidence "against the statutorily required elements of the offense," ¶ 22 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2005)), and do not "reweigh the evidence to decide if [we] would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact,"

“The sufficiency of the evidence must be tested against the statutorily required elements of the offense.” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

decision) (finding that two charges of aggravated assault resulting from a single gunshot wound to a single victim were multiplicitous); ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (concluding that aggravated assault could be committed either by causing serious physical injury or using a deadly weapon without any analysis of multiplicity); State v. Steel, 1 CA-CR 16-0545, 2018 WL 3358998, at *2, ¶¶ 12-13 (Ariz. App. July 10, 2018) (mem.

Substantial evidence, whether 4 STATE v. FICHTELMAN Decision of the Court circumstantial or direct, is that which offers “such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 7 (App. 2005).

Sufficient evidence may exist even where conflicting evidence is presented, and may be circumstantial or direct, ¶ 7 (App. 2005).