Cited by

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

185 citing documents.

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
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 6, (“Although the record contains some conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses.”).
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 6, (“Although the record contains some conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses.”).
State v. Miranda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Miranda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that, when faced with conflicting evidence, “it [i]s for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses”) ().
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 6, (stating we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury).
State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 6, (stating that we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury).
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 6, and we resolve all conflicts in the evidence against Roberts, see State 5
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on motions for a mistrial, and we review the court’s denial of a motion for an abuse of discretion, State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, ¶ 124
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“Although the record contains some conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the relied on”); (“opening briefs must present significant arguments” and “[f]ailure to argue a claim us
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
.” (weighing of evidence is role for jury).
In RE MARRIAGE OF REEDER v. Johnson 227 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In RE MARRIAGE OF REEDER v. Johnson 227 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
We employ this statutory construction principle only to aid in determining the drafters' intent; "it should not be applied when context and public policy contradict it.” ¶ 31, (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
4 But “[w]e review de novo the interpretation of statutes and rules.”
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
waived his objection”); (because 2 Generally an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived.
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“Although the record contains some conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by