DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 99 P.3d 43.

181 citing documents.

  • State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 39 (App. 2004) (concluding “that the aberrant sexual propensity exception to the prohibition against character evidence, codified in Rule 404(c), encompasses the crimes of public sexual indecency and public sexual indecency to a minor,” even though those offenses are not expressly recognized within A.R.S.
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Abbott challenges the informant’s testimony, arguing that she “was a completely incredible witness as to this charge.” It is the province of the jury, however, and not this Court, “to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses.” ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
  • State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 32 (2000); ¶ 47 (App. 2004).
  • State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Valandingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Valandingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “[B]ecause the trial judge is aware of the atmosphere of the trial, the circumstances surrounding the incident, the manner in which any objectionable statement was made, and the possible effect on the jury and the trial,” the decision on a motion for mistrial “will be reversed only if it is clearly injurious.” ¶ 47 (App. 2004) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Deans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶9 “Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
  • State v. Deans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that it is the jury’s function, not the court of appeals, to weigh the evidence and determine credibility).
  • State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Valencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Valencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (explaining that it is “the function of the jury” to weigh evidence and “determine the credibility of the witnesses”); (explaining that “it is the jury’s function to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein and then to determ
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (the jury may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence equally in determining its verdict); ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (the jury determines witness credibility and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence).
  • State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Dawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Dawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that it is the jury’s function, not the appellate courts, to weigh the evidence and determine credibility).
  • State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that it is the jury’s function, not the court of appeals, to weigh the evidence and determine credibility).
  • State v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that it is the jury’s function, not the court of appeals, to weigh the evidence and to determine credibility).
  • State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that it is the jury’s function, not the court of appeals, to weigh the evidence and to determine credibility).
  • State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that it is the jury’s function, not the court of appeals, to weigh the evidence and to determine credibility).
  • Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 38, (examining a rule’s policy implications in deciding whether its application would lead to absurd results) ¶ 17, (explaining that a result is “absurd” when “it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that
  • State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015