Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pieck, 529 P.2d 217.

40 citing documents.

State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“The jury is not compelled to accept the story or believe the testimony of an interested party.”).
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of an interested party.”
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“The credibility of a witness and the weight and value to be given a witness’ testimony are questions exclusively for the [trier of fact].”
State v. Derrico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Derrico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“The jury is not compelled to accept the story or believe the testimony of an interested party.”).
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(acknowledging that the fact-finder “is not compelled to accept the story or believe the testimony of an interested party”).
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. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Even where the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is imposed as a guide for the trier of fact, questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to the testimony are considered as questions exclusively for the jury, , and the appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130 647 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Even where the more stringent ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard is imposed as a guide for the trier of fact, questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to the testimony are considered as questions exclusively for the jury, , and the appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Hopper v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Hopper v. Industrial Commission 558 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ariz. 1 , Brown v. Karas, supra ; , 1 Even where the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is imposed as a guide for the trier of fact, questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to the testimony are considered as questions exclusively for the jury, , and the appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.