Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nihiser, 953 P.2d 1252.

111 citing documents.

State v. Stempel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
He argues “[t]he only thing the jury knew about her was that she wore a shirt labeled ‘paramedic in training.’ No one could say who she was, what training she had, or whether she met any forensic standards.” because the “government may not use forensic blood evidence without first identifying the person who drew the blood and proving the individual was qualified under Arizona law.” ¶39 By statute, only a physician, a registered nurse or another qualified person may with
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lindstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lindstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“[T]he presumption of sanity is a procedural device[.]”); (“We view presumptions as procedural, rather than evidentiary, concepts.“); (“A presumption is not evidence of anything, and only relates to a rule of law as to which party shall first go forward and produce evidence sustaining a matter in issue” (citation o
State v. Escalante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Escalante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Investigators discovered that Younan had 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶4 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: In December 2010, Dickenson went to an Arizona Motor Vehicle Division 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The jury found Morago 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although she “seemed very inebriated” and did not know where she 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶4 Zamorano was charged with aggravated assault against T.H., a class three felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Garth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
responded, “If you don’t pay me, I’m leaving with your earring.” Garth replied, “That’s fine.” 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Lopata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION ¶5 Lopata contends his conviction should be vacated because the State “presented no evidence that [he] knew or should have known that the 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
B. Statutory Construction ¶ 12 “[T]he statute’s language [ ] is the ‘best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.’” ¶ 10 , ( , ).
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
At the conclusion of the State’s case-in-chief, Sanchez moved for a judgment 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Davignon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Davignon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The detective saw Davignon reach 1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Cardona Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cardona Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶7 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against [Defendant].” (
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶7 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014