Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Godsoe, 489 P.2d 4.

34 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
-71 (1971) (leading questions permissible where witness is a minor or the subject matter is of a “delicate nature”).
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
See, , (“[T]he court should not single out or unduly emphasize any particular part of the evidence to the exclusion of the rest.”).
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
We think this method would run afoul of Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27 ("Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact ...."), , ("A judge comments on the evidence when he expresses to the jury his opinion of what the evidence shows or does not show.
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Wackerman v. Wackerman, 16 Ariz.App.
State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Only in circumstances where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a judgment, State v. Godsoe, 107 * P.2d 4 (1971), or where a judgment is clearly contrary to any substantial evidence, United States v. Goodrich, 493 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1974), is it proper to reverse on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
State v. Carter 601 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Carter 601 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
If you find that the testimony of the complaining witness does not meet this standard, you must find the defendant not guilty.” , and Reidhead v. *531 State, , 250 P. 366 (1926).
State v. Valencia 575 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Valencia 575 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
State v. Parker 567 P.2d 319 Ariz. 1977
State v. Stoneman 566 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1977
State v. Parker 567 P.2d 319 Ariz. 1977
State v. Gallegos 556 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Gallegos 556 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Only in circumstances where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a judgment, , or where a judgment is clearly contrary to any substantial evidence, United States v. Goodrich, 493 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1974), is it proper to reverse *539 on the grounds of insufficient evidence.” 549 P.2d at 575-76 .
State v. Scott 555 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1976
State v. Scott 555 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1976
State v. Gaines 549 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1976
State v. Gaines 549 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1976
Only in circumstances where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a judgment, , or where a judgment is clearly contrary to any substantial evidence, United States v. Goodrich, 493 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1974), is it proper to reverse on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
The following year, however, , in a child molesting case this Court, without reference to either the Goldsmith or Parker cases, found no error in a jury instruction which stated that evidence of other similar sexual offenses indicating a propensity for sexual molestation or sexual aberration in respect to young girls might be co
State v. Richardson 514 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1973
State v. Richardson 514 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1973
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973