Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bearden, 405 P.2d 885.

165 citing documents.

State v. Sears 522 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Sears 522 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Doty 519 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1974
State v. Doty 519 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1974
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, , : “We are only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
State v. Money 514 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1973
State v. Money 514 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1973
“Evidence is not insubstantial simply because the testimony is conflicting or reasonable persons may draw different conclusions therefrom.” -4
State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
and again we must find against the appellant.
Arizona Chuck Wagon Service, Inc. v. Barenburg 496 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Arizona Chuck Wagon Service, Inc. v. Barenburg 496 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Woody 496 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1972
State v. Woody 496 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1972
State v. Thornton 493 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1972
State v. Thornton 493 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1972
State v. Beers, 8 Ariz.App.
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
City of Phoenix v. Burke, 9 Ariz.App.
State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
: “We are only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
State v. Murphy 482 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1971
State v. Murphy 482 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1971
State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
91 , .” at 4 , at 886 (1965).
State v. Brookshire 480 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brookshire 480 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1971
State v. Dutton 478 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1970
State v. Dutton 478 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1970
The facts adduced at trial, taken in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict ( , ) are the following.
State v. Jensen 477 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1970
State v. Jensen 477 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1970
Taking the facts most favorable to upholding the conviction, , they are as follows: The complaining witness, Mrs. Dorothy Clatterbuck, at about noon on August 16, 1968, returned to her Phoenix home after an absence of approximately two hours for a pair of gloves.
State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
It is claimed that she could not be convicted as a principal under § 13-139 because it was not shown that she actually committed the crime; , .
State v. Riley 475 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1970
State v. Riley 475 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1970
in his opening brief and argues that under the rule announced in that case the proof is insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict.
State v. Slefkin 475 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Slefkin 475 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In determining whether proof of the requisite intent is present, we will consider the overall record, and direct our concern only to query whether there was substantial evidence in support of the verdict
State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
1386 , 18 L.Ed.2d 468 (1967)
State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
we said: “We are only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
State v. Mercer 473 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Mercer 473 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Pina 469 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Pina 469 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970