Cited by

another time in the garage when victim was with a cousin” to “time when victim was in the bathtub.” 4 STATE v. ZAMORA Decision of the Court ¶14 While an amendment to the location of an offense may correct a mere mistake of fact without violating Rule 13.5(b), ¶ 19 (App. 2013) (concluding an amendment that changed “the location where the conduct was alleged to have occurred did not change the elements necessary to prove the crime and therefore did not change the nature of the offense”), in this c

¶ 36 (App. 2013); ¶ 168 (2016).

¶ 38 (App. 2013) (stating that "no rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury" (cleaned up)).

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).