Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez, 307 P.3d 51.
- State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Wright
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013) (quotation omitted).
- State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Ward
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013).
- State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Garcia
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013).
- State v. Bustos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Bustos
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013).
- State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Williams
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sufficient evidence may be circumstantial or direct, id., and we neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor reevaluate the credibility of witnesses, -88, ¶¶ 9, 12 (App. 2013).
-
State v. Brown
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶20 When the evidence supporting a verdict is challenged on appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence, ¶ 9 (App. 2013); ¶ 6 (App. 2004), or determine the credibility of witnesses, Williams, 209 Ariz. at 231, ¶ 6; (“This court is not empowered to impose its own determination as to the credibility of [witnesses] in decidin
- State v. Tamala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
State v. Tamala
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶25 Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “‘is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate’” to “‘support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013) ().
- State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
State v. Mullet
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶21 Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013) (citations omitted).
- State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Gehon
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).
- State v. Dodd 418 P.3d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Dodd
418 P.3d 955
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Additionally, we test the evidence "against the statutorily required elements of the offense," State v. Pena , , 505 ¶ 8, , 875 (App. 2005), and "do not reweigh the evidence to decide if [we] would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact," State v. Borquez , , 487 ¶ 9, , 54 (App. 2013).
- State v. Nolte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Nolte
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2013).
- State v. Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Harden
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013).
- State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Young
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury can convict may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).
- State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Gurrieri
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury can convict may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013).
- State v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Robles
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
- State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Whitlock
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a 3 STATE v. WHITLOCK Decision of the Court reasonable doubt.” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013).
- State v. Buechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Buechler
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11, (“And in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not distinguish circumstantial from direct evidence.”).
- State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota
319 P.3d 242
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
E.g., Torres, n.2, 314 P.3d at 828 n.2; n.5, n.5 (App. 2013); n.1, n.1 (App. 2013); Lopez, n.1, 298 P.3d at 910 n.1.