DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clifton, 656 P.2d 634.

34 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
    When deciding whether to grant a Rule 20 motion, “the trial judge must review the evidence in the ‘light most favorable to the state, and all reasonable inferences are to be resolved against the defendant’ to decide if a reasonable person could fairly conclude the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 17 (2017) ().
  • State v. Buzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Buzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    When considering a Rule 20 motion, this court reviews “‘the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, and all reasonable inferences are to be resolved against the defendant’ to decide if a person could reasonably conclude the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 17 (2017) ().
  • State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (In deciding whether substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction, we “giv[e] full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inference[s] therefrom.”).
  • Dupray v. Jai Dining 432 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Dupray v. Jai Dining 432 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Snethen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Snethen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    In deciding whether a defendant should be acquitted on a premise of evidence insufficiency, a court “must determine whether upon the evidence, giving full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inference[s] therefrom, a reasonable person could fairly conclude the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
    ¶ 18, (“Thus, in ruling on a Rule 20 motion, unlike a motion for a new trial under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.1(c)(1), a trial court may not re- weigh the facts or disregard inferences that might reaso
  • State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ht most favorable to 5 STATE v. FISCHER Opinion of the Court sustaining the verdict, nor does it resolve all conflicting inferences in favor of sustaining the verdict.3 -12 (1969); -44 (1954); -49 (App. 1982).
  • Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    This court “must give ‘full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable conclusions therefrom.’” McBride, 228 Ariz. at 265, ¶ 11, 265 P.3d at 1064 ( ).
  • McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    A trial judge must give “full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable conclusions therefrom.”
  • State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Taking the state’s evidence as true, as the trial court was required to do, , the location of a letter from Gleason to Robison was relevant to the grand jury inquiry.
  • State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Smith 803 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Smith 803 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Tubbs 747 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Tubbs 747 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    In passing on a motion for judgment of acquittal the trial judge gives “full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence and draw justifiable conclusions therefrom____”