Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca, 312 P.3d 123.

126 citing documents.

State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Clementine v. Ruhorimbere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Clementine v. Ruhorimbere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 38 (App. 2013) (“It is not the province of an appellate court to reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.”).
State v. Mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
West, 226 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 18; (“Weighing the credibility of witnesses is the province of the jury, not the judge.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 38 (App. 2013) (“[N]o 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.”) ( ¶ 27 (2007)) (emphasis added).
State v. Fulcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Fulcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we compare the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), but will neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
This court will not “reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.” ¶ 38 (App. 2013).
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Zuleger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Zuleger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 152 (2015); ¶ 15 (App. 2013).
State v. Amman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Amman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
e evidence, we compare the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense[,]” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), 10 STATE v. BROCK Opinion of the Court and neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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).
State v. Dunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we test the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense,” ¶ 8 (App. 2005), and we neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 13.5(b); ¶ 17 (App. 2013).
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kellywood 433 P.3d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Kellywood 433 P.3d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Buccheri-Bianca , , ¶ 38
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
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, see Buccheri-Bianca, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).
State v. McFarland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McFarland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
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).
State v. Curl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Curl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Limits on Cross-Examination ¶18 Trial courts “retain wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination to prevent confusion of the issues or interrogation that is only marginally relevant.” ¶ 8 (App. 2013).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
a license to run at large in cross-examination.”); ¶ 8 (App. 2013); ¶ 27 (App. 2011).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 33 (App. 2013) (defendant’s recorded statement admitting guilt properly admitted as a statement by a party opponent).
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 28 (App. 2013) (rejecting a similar argument relating to Rule 702).