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. Bearden, 405 P.2d 885.

165 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    If reasonable people “may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” ().
  • 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
    “If reasonable [persons] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” , ( , )
  • State v. Garland 756 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Garland 756 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    “Substantial evidence” has been defined as “more than a scintilla and is such proof as a reasonable mind would *248 employ to support the conclusion reached.”
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
    Jackson v. Virginia, supra
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
    If reasonable men may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.”
  • State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Printz 609 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Printz 609 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1980
    “Reversible error occurs where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion (citations omitted).”
  • Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
  • Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
    City of Phoenix v. Burke, 9 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Figueroa 593 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Figueroa 593 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Parker 589 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Parker 589 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    LaFave and Scott, *174 Criminal Law, Sec.
  • State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
    Because we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the ver-diet, , , we find that the evidence supported the jury’s determination that defendant was aware that his acts were legally wrong.
  • State v. Olivas 579 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Olivas 579 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Green 570 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Green 570 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Torres 556 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Torres 556 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Bellamy 542 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Bellamy 542 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the verdict, P.2d 885 (1965), we find sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
  • State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    He contends that by providing alternative theories, he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on the ground that he could not be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence unless that evidence was “not only consistent with guilt, but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence,”
  • State v. Barnett 540 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Barnett 540 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1975
    When considering whether the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence “we do not decide whether we would reach the same conclusion as the jury,” but only whether “there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion.”
  • State v. Stolze 539 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Stolze 539 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1975
    * * * If reasonable men may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” at 3-4 , at 886 (1965).
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
    : “When we consider whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence we do not decide whether we would reach the same conclusion as the jury.
  • State v. Reese 527 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Reese 527 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Price 526 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Price 526 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1974
    The aider or abettor must stand in the same relation to the crime as the criminal, approach it from the same angle, touch it at the same point and possess criminal intent, (citations omitted).”