Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Sullivan, 931 P.2d 1109.

28 citing documents.

State v. Newman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Newman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
3 STATE v. NEWMAN Decision of the Court ¶10 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the verdicts and “will reverse only if there is a complete absence of ‘substantial evidence’ to support the conviction.” ¶ 40 (App. 2005) ().
State v. Foard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Foard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 29 In our review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the jury’s verdicts and “will reverse only if there is a complete absence of ‘substantial evidence’ to support the conviction.” , ¶ 40
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Dawes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dawes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We will reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal “only if there is a complete absence of ‘substantial evidence’ to support the conviction.” ¶ 8, (
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶6 Although we review the trial court’s ruling on a Rule 20 motion de novo, ¶¶ 14-15, we will reverse only if we find no substantial evidence to warrant conviction
State v. Cifelli 155 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Cifelli 155 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict and will reverse only if there is a complete absence of ‘substantial evidence’ to support the conviction.”
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶8 We will reverse a trial court’s decision to deny a motion for a judgment of acquittal “only if there is a complete absence of ‘substantial evidence’ to support the conviction.”
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
ictment period.” And, he maintains, the state “failed to prove a time period of three months or more.” ¶40 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict and will reverse only if there is a complete absence of ‘substantial evidence’ to support the conviction.” quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999