Cited by

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

In so doing, we may not “reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.”

denials from his statement to the detective created an “out-of-context, misleading portrayal of his statement.” Arias contends the court’s preclusion of his denials constituted a violation of the rule of completeness, which “was not harmless and deprived him of a fair trial.” “We review a trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.”

See Fischer, 242 Ariz. at 50 ¶ 19; ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

See State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 19 STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Opinion of the Court

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

¶16 Rule 106 does not require the admission of the entirety of a piece of evidence but “only the portion of a statement ‘necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced.’” ¶ 34 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 58 (2008)).

iency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and neither reweigh conflicting 6 STATE v. MCKINNEY Decision of the Court evidence nor assess witnesses’ credibility, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. 324, 334, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

¶ 38 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).

issibility of Note, Other Weapons, and Ammunition ¶7 Haywood argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a note on his gun safe and of the “weapons and ammunition found at his residence, other than the specific weapon identified to have shot the victim.” “We review a trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.”

In so doing, we may not “reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.”

P., Strover contends the trial court abused its discretion, ¶ 16 (App. 2013), because he did not agree to the amendment and the State’s motion was untimely.

¶ 38 7 STATE v. CLINE Decision of the Court (App. 2013).

We will consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16, but we will not reweigh conflicting evidence or reassess witness credibility on appeal, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

This court will not “reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.” ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

We review that order for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Buccheri–Bianca, ¶ 16 (App. 2013); and because Johnson’s counsel objected to the amendment, we review for harmless error, ¶ 18 (2005).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the state’s evidence, we may not “reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.”