Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harm, 340 P.3d 1110.

343 citing documents.

State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Grewe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Grewe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ing began, Porter admitted he was a “prohibited possessor” and had possession of a “.38” and “some bullets.” After being advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966), Porter again admitted he was 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In rebuttal, the State argued, again without objection: 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Carrizoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carrizoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nolte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nolte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, 404, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033(A) (2010).2 DISCUSSION ¶8 On appeal, “[w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ( ).
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Harm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
During a subsequent interview with the police, Jones admitted he “did it.” 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
When Romero exited the vehicle, Sergeant 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Johansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Officer Santana then felt the vehicle lurch forward and start 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.2, ¶ 2, n. 2 (App. 2015) ( ).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().