Cited by

(jury resolves conflicts and weighs witness credibility); (jury weighs evidence).

Substantial evidence is “proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)

(App. 4Guinard also argues the superior court abused its discretion in denying his post-trial motion to dismiss with prejudice or for a new trial.

Substantial evidence is “proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)

¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that, when faced with conflicting evidence, “it [i]s for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses”) ().

he witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the [finder-of-fact],” ¶ 27, (– 57, –89 (1974)), I question whether an appellate court may consider witness credibility in determining sufficiency of the evidence, (recognizing that “[t]he finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses”).

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

Trotter questions the 3 STATE v. TROTTER Decision of the Court credibility of the victim’s sister because of the change in her testimony about the nature of the movie, but “[t]he finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.” (citation omitted).

§ 10–1434(B) to provide for a different resolution of the proceedings if that “would be equitable to the corporation and the shareholders.” Such a reading contradicts the statutory construction rule that related statutes must be “read together and harmonized[] to avoid rendering any clause, sentence or word ‘superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.’” –500, –220 (App. 1995) (quoting 7 GRIES et al. v. HARPER/ ) (citations omitted).

3 STATE v. BEUCLER Decision of the Court I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶9 “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.”

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶11 “The finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”

determines the credibility of witnesses.”

This argument is unavailing on appeal because “[t]he finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”

(“finder-of-fact, not the appellate court .

Lee, 189 Ariz. at 603, 944 P.2d at 1217

See Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., ¶ 7 , aff'd, , -500 , -20 (App. 1995) (stating the rule that statutes in pari materia are read together and harmonized to avoid rendering any word, clause, or sentence superfluous or void).

“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.”

(finder of fact, not appellate court, determines witness credibility).

See Ward, 26 P.3d at 1160; (“[A]n appellate court presumes that the trial court considered all relevant mitigating factors in rendering its sentencing decision.”).