Cited by

(observing that the probative value of circumstantial evidence is “essentially similar” to that of direct evidence and the prosecution is not required “to negate every conceivable hypothesis of innocence” in a case based on circumstantial evidence).

(noting appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or resolve inferences in a defendant’s favor).

by clear and convincing evidence because the evidence presented “was almost entirely circumstantial” with “innocent and non-abusive explanations.” But “[t]he probative value of evidence is not reduced simply because it is circumstantial.”

is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,’” (), and may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, Pena, 209 Ariz. at 505, ¶ 7 ( ).

The substantial evidence supporting a conviction may be circumstantial or direct, and the State need not negate every conceivable theory of innocence when circumstantial evidence alone supports the conviction

Moreover, “[t]he probative value of evidence is not reduced because it is circumstantial.” ().

The substantial evidence supporting conviction may be circumstantial or direct, and the State need not negate every conceivable theory of innocence when circumstantial evidence alone supports the conviction

See Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 596-97 , 832 P.2d at 613-14 ; Zmich, 160 Ariz. at 109 , 770 P.2d at 777 ; , (holding that evidence may be either direct or circumstantial, and the probative value of the evidence is not reduced simply because it is circumstantial).

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial, , but if reasonable minds can differ on inferences to be drawn therefrom, the case must be submitted to the jury.