Cited by

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

86 citing documents.

State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-57, -89 (1974) (recognizing it is the trier of fact’s exclusive role to weigh the credibility of testimony).
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Evidence is not insubstantial simply because testimony is conflicting or reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from the evidence.”); (“[T]he jury is not compelled to accept [the defendant’s] story or believe his testimony.”).
State of Arizona v. Hon. bernstein/herman 349 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Hon. bernstein/herman 349 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2015
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Because “[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 [finder-of-fact],” ¶ 27, (– 57, –89 (1974)), I question whether an appellate court may consider witness credibility in determining sufficiency of the evidence, (recognizing that “[t]he finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determ
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-57, -89 (1974) (holding “the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury”).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See State v. 4 -57, -89 (1974) (noting “credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury”).
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“The jury is not compelled to accept the story or believe the testimony of an interested party.”) ( ).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Although Robinson denied selling methamphetamine, “[n]o rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the 4 STATE v. ROBINSON Decision of the Court weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.” -57, -89 (1974).
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 27, (- 57, -89 (1974)).
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“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, -89 (1974).
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“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, -89 (1974).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“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, -89 (1974).
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“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, -89 (1974).
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
4 Indeed, the Arizona Supreme Court stated decades ago *94 that “[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 , -89 (1974); ¶ 29 , (“ ‘Admissibility is for determination by the judge unassisted by the jury.
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
But “‘[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.’” quoting State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555, 556-57, -89 (1974).
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
See State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555, 556-57, -89 (1974) (noting that it is the jury’s exclusive role to weigh the 33 credibility of testimony, including the defendant’s).
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
- 11 - verdict indicates that the jury found the deputies’ testimony regarding the events more credible than Perko’s. “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, -89 (1974); ¶ 24
State v. Pieck 529 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1974
State v. Pieck 529 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1974