Cited by

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

126 citing documents.

State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 39 (App. 2013) (explaining that 5 The jury was properly instructed on accomplice liability.
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We review for an abuse of discretion a court’s decision to permit the amendment of an indictment.” ¶ 16 (App. 2013).2 ¶7 The dates of the count 3–5 offenses are not elements of the charged crimes, so amending the date range did not lead to substantively 2 ¶ 26 (2009), Defendant contends we should apply a harmless error standard of review.
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We examine whether “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” -31, ¶ 24 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We examine whether “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” -31, ¶ 24 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Because Mayes objected to the amendment, we review the issue for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 16, (citation omitted), and will affirm the conviction so long as any 3 The record also reveals there were concerns about the chain of custody of the alleged marijuana because Detective Hatcher did not impound the marijuana until four days after it was seized from Mayes.
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tessler v. Progressive Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 38 (App. 2013) (“It is not the province of an appellate court to reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.”) (citations omitted); see also Pawlicki v. Farmers Ins.
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
”The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 36 (App. 2013) (punctuation and citation omitted).
State v. Steinle 354 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Steinle 354 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION ¶ 6 “We review a trial court’s ruling on admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 7 , (internal citations omitted).
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
– 29, ¶¶ 12–15, –28 (App. 2013).
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(affirming admission of generalized expert testimony, sometimes called "cold expert” testimony, under Ariz. R. Evid.