Cited by

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

111 citing documents.

State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶10 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Regenold 255 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Regenold 255 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Our starting point, however, is “the statute’s language because it is the ‘best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.’ ” ¶ 10 , ( , ).
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Valverde 204 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Valverde 204 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against [defendant].”
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Rodriguez-Rosario 193 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Rodriguez-Rosario 193 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 ‘We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.” ¶ 2 , ( , ).
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
I. ¶2 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to supporting the verdicts, P.2d 1252 (App. 1997), revealed the following.
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Fragozo; , Sanchez; Arzola; Gandara, 174 Ariz. at 107 , 847 P.2d at 608 ; , (describing the mandatory, four-month prison term under a predecessor statute as a “sentence”).
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Furthermore, the rule of lenity, if otherwise appropriate, is inapplicable when the intent behind the statute is, as here, “discernable.” , see also A.R.S.
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co., -58 , Silva, 63 Ariz. at 370-71 , 162 P.2d at 618 ; , (citation omitted).
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
’ adopted by the court pursuant to its exclusive power to make [procedural] rules.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State Ex Rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage 30 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage 30 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001