Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bustamante, 274 P.3d 526.

59 citing documents.

State v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We will not reweigh the evidence, ¶ 9 (App. 2013), and a second reasonable interpretation of the evidence does not mean there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Escobar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Escobar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 10 (App. 2012) (it is the State’s burden to prove a weapons misconduct charge).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“The credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony are issues for the jury, not the court.”).
State v. Truong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Truong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, ¶ 93 (2013), and resolve all conflicts in the evidence against Collins, ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Welvaert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Welvaert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 93 (2013); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Knisley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Knisley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 6 (App. 2012) (circumstantial evidence may support a conviction); ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (“An intent to defraud may be, and often is, deduced from circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 93 (2013); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Piper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Piper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 93 (2013); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Harrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 12 (App. 2012); Gonsalves, 231 Ariz. at 525, ¶¶ 19–20.
State v. Andersen 531 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Andersen 531 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 93 (2013); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Heering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Heering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 93 (2013); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Papazian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 93 (2013); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).
State v. Papazian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 12 (2006), ¶¶ 13-14 (2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2012) (“By asking the prosecutor for a race-neutral explanation for the strike, the judge implicitly found that defendant had met his initial burden to make a prima facie case of intentional discrimination.”).
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Womble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Womble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 16 (App. 2012) (finding no Batson error where a juror was struck for having “some language issues” and because she was a teacher and worked with children); ¶¶ 20–27 (2010) (finding no Batson error where a juror was struck because she had a Hispanic surname and had difficulty r
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“To set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012) ().
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“To set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012) ().
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 16 (App. 2012) (“By asking the prosecutor for a race-neutral explanation for the strike, the judge implicitly found that defendant had met his initial burden to make a prima facie case of intentional discrimination.”).
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“The credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony are issues for the jury, not the court.”).
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 16 (App. 2012) (concluding a prosecutor’s strike of a juror because of “language issues” was a plausible, race-neutral reason for striking a juror).
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶12 By asking for a “race-neutral” explanation, the court implicitly found that Orner met his initial burden to make a prima facie case of intentional discrimination based on race.2 ¶ 16 (App. 2012).
State v. Makel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Makel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-61, ¶ 15, -31 (App. 2012) (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015