Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Money, 514 P.2d 1014.

60 citing documents.

Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“[I]t is the jury’s function to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein and then to determine whether or not a reasonable doubt exists.”) ().
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[I]t is the jury’s function to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein and then to determine whether or not a reasonable doubt exists.”) ().
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
After evidence is admitted as relevant, it is the jury’s responsibility “to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein, and then to determine whether or not a reasonable doubt exists.”
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding that jury resolves witness credibility).
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
23, 1019 (1973) (supreme court independently evaluated “‘totality of the circumstances’ surrounding the identification procedure to determine whether the lineup was unduly suggestive,” concluding it was not); Taylor, 27 Ariz. App. at 332, 333, 554 P.2d at 928, 929 (noting its “initial inq
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 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. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986) (defendant was only subject with “the beginnings of a full beard”); -23 , -19 (1973) (in-person lineup not unduly suggestive despite minor differences in height, weight and hair length, and where only defendant had a mustache); , (photographic lineup not unduly suggestive despite fact that only de
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Blevins 625 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Blevins 625 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Carrillo 626 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Carrillo 626 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Cook 596 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1979
State v. Cook 596 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1979
” We think that reasonable men could find from the evidence in this case that appellant was present and participated in the offenses.
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
two people were robbed by three men.
State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Under Rule 20, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., a judgment of acquittal will only be granted where there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”
State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
State v. Reid 559 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1976
State v. Reid 559 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1976
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Hardy 540 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1975
State v. Hardy 540 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1975
State v. Guiliani 540 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Guiliani 540 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975