Cited by

(“The finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”).

see also Williams, 209 Ariz. at 231, ¶ 6 (“Appellant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence go merely to weight and credibility.

Corp., (“[R]elated statutes must be ‘read together and harmonized[ ] to avoid rendering any clause, sentence or word superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.’” (alterations in Gries) (- 500 (App. 1995))).

(The jury is the finder of fact and will weigh the evidence.).

(“The finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”).

(“The finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”).

4th at 973–81 (remanding, in part, because plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to establish material factual disputes regarding their fraudulent inducement challenge to an arbitration clause); (the “finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence” and determines credibility).

We will reverse only where a complete absence of probative facts supports the conviction, and will not reweigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses

(“[A]n appellate court presumes that the trial court considered all relevant mitigating factors in rendering its sentencing decision.”).

3 (“[A]n appellate court presumes that the trial court considered all relevant mitigating factors in rendering its sentencing decision.”).

When determining whether the State met its burden, 8 STATE v. BILDUCIA Decision of the Court “[t]he finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”

This court, therefore, “will not second-guess the jury’s decision.”

Although A.B., B.A., and Tolliver could not recall every detail of the events of April and May 2017, and at times contradicted one another, it is the province of the jury and not this court to “weigh[] the evidence and determine[] the credibility of witnesses.”

The superior court, not this Court, is responsible for “weigh[ing] the evidence and determin[ing] the credibility of witnesses.”

Because jurors weigh evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses, see State v. Cid , , 500, , 220 (App. 1995), they should have had the opportunity to determine for themselves whether M.O.'s fear of being charged motivated him to fabricate.

(“Judges are presumed to know and follow the law and to consider all relevant sentencing information before them.” (citations omitted)).

STATE v. WALKER Decision of the Court 500, (credibility of the evidence and its weight, if any, are matters for the jury to decide).2 ¶20 The State also argues the error was

Because the jury, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 97, (citation omitted); 2 At the time of this offense, Porras was on probation in CR 2005-006245.

We do not reweigh the evidence and will reverse only if “there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” -25 (1976) (); (“The finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”) ().