Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clemons, 521 P.2d 987.

86 citing documents.

State v. Elizondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Elizondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
–57 (1974) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”).
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Newman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Newman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶11 “No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.” ¶ 27 (2007) (-57 (1974)).
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(explaining the jury is not compelled to believe the defendant’s testimony).
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(noting that the factfinder "is not compelled to accept [the defendant's] story or believe his testimony"); ("[A] conviction may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonabl
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(concluding that guilty verdict implied jury did not believe only defense offered); (finding it “peculiarly within [jury’s] province” to disbelieve defendant’s story).
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“The principle applies equally to the testimony of an accused because, being an interested witness, the jury is not compelled to accept his story or believe his testimony.”).
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
–57 (1974) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”).
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–57 (1974) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”).
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.” –67 (1974).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The “credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.” -57 (1974).
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Trammell 433 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Trammell 433 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, -57 (1974) (citations omitted) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”).
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
However, “[n]o rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.” –57 (1974).
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-57, -89 (1974) (counting cases) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”).
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Although Blackwell testified at trial and denied robbing the store, “[n]o rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.” –57 (1974).
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–57 (1974) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”).
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
3 STATE v. JUAREZ Decision of the Court conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”); –57 (1974) (witness credibility and weight to be given to testimony are determined exclusively by the jury).
Hood v. Ruhl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hood v. Ruhl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-57 (1974) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”).
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18 (2015) (“[I]t is the jury’s exclusive province to assess the weight and credibility of evidence.”) (-57 (1974)).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶5 “No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.” –57 (1974).
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016