Cited by

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and “do not reweigh the evidence to decide if [we] would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact[,]” Borquez, 232 Ariz. at 487, ¶ 9 (internal quotation omitted).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court tests the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense.” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

In evaluating the court’s denial of a Rule 20 motion, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense.” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

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

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and “do not reweigh the evidence to decide if we would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Indeed, a case must be remanded “[w]hen it is unclear whether the judge would have imposed the same sentences absent the inappropriate factor.” ¶ 24 (App. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

The evidence “may be either circumstantial or direct.” ¶ 7 (App. 2005).

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

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

¶ 23 (App. 2005) (“The reversal of a single aggravating factor may mean that the sentencing calculus .

¶ 8 (App. 2003); ¶ 22 (App. 2005) (describing sentencing judge “weighing and balancing aggravating and mitigating factors” to determine sentence within statutory range).

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

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and “do not reweigh the evidence to decide if [we] would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact.” Borquez, 232 Ariz. at 487, ¶ 9 (alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted).

.”); –07, ¶ 14 (App. 2005) (confirming it is an error to use infliction of serious physical injury as an aggravating circumstance when the defendant is convicted of aggravated assault based on serious physical injury).

§ 13-1204(A), constitutes a single offense that may be committed in several ways, ¶ 12 (App. 2005), a defendant cannot be convicted twice of aggravated assault arising from a single act.

Id.; ¶ 23 (App. 2005) (“The reversal of a single aggravating factor may mean that the ‘sentencing calculus .

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

¶ 20 (App. 2012) (remanding for resentencing because the trial court relied on improper aggravating factors and the record did not demonstrate the court would necessarily impose the same sentence absent the improper factors); ¶ 24 (App. 2005) (“When it is ‘unclear whether the judge would have imposed the same sentences absent the inappropriate factor, the case must be remanded for resentencing.’” ( ¶ 19 (App. 2003))).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we compare the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense[,]” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), 10 STATE v. BROCK Opinion of the Court and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

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

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

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

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and “do not reweigh the evidence to decide if we would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact.” Borquez, 232 Ariz. at 487, ¶ 9 (citation omitted).

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).