Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Green, 532 P.2d 506.

47 citing documents.

State v. Juniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Juniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
And the lack of direct evidence is not dispositive because “[a] conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.” (); accord Aguirre, 255 Ariz. at 92, ¶ 8; Borquez, 232 Ariz. at 487, ¶ 11.
State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan 548 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan 548 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Duncan highlights this distinction, arguing “there is no similar evidence from Mr. Duncan or any other source as to his motivation.” But we recognize “no distinction in the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence,” and “[a] conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.”
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“There is no distinction in the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“There is no distinction in the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence.”
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“A conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.”
State v. Lopez-Clemente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lopez-Clemente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“A conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.”)
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶63 “A conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone,” and the substantial circumstantial evidence detailed above supported the convictions.
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
A conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.” see also Davolt, 84 P.3d at 470 (probative weight of circumstantial evidence “sufficient to justify the verdict[]” and uphold conviction on harmless error analysis).
State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Harney 625 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Harney 625 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
The cases cited by the defendant, , and State v. Vaughn, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Blevins 623 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Blevins 623 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979
State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979
State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The prosecutor’s statements were perfectly consistent with our law that a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence as well as on direct evidence
State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Decker 580 P.2d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Decker 580 P.2d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Justice v. City of Casa Grande 567 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Justice v. City of Casa Grande 567 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Million 556 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Million 556 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
” 112 Ariz. at 515 , 543 P.2d at 1144 .
State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Industrial Commission 534 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by