Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 526 P.2d 714.
- State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
State v. Termini
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See, -78 (1974) (“A conviction may be had on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it.”); ¶ 3 (App. 2005) (holding that the testimony of a single witness, tho
- State v. Faria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
State v. Faria
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“[T]estimony of the victim is a sufficient basis on which to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the incident occurred.” Id.; –78 (1974) (uncorroborated testimony can support a conviction requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt “unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it”).
- State v. Newman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
State v. Newman
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A victim’s testimony may alone supply sufficient evidence to support a conviction, absent an account that is “physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it.” -78 (1974).
- State v. Mill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
State v. Mill
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-78 (1974) (“A conviction may be had on the basis of the [victim’s] uncorroborated testimony .
- State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
State v. Garcia
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶15 A victim’s testimony alone may constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction, absent an account that is “physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it.” –78 (1974) (); (“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”).
- State v. Fulcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
State v. Fulcher
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Even if uncorroborated, a victim’s testimony is sufficient to support a conviction “unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it.” -78 (1974).
- State v. Buffington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
State v. Buffington
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
All that is required is a jury selected by a process from which members of his [or her] race are not systematically excluded.”
- State v. Hickey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Hickey
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–78 (1974); ¶ 3 (App. 2005).
- State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. MacIas
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Vega, 228 Ariz. at 28 n.4, ¶ 19 (-78 (1974)).
- State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
-
State v. James
393 P.3d 467
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
The state further reasons that, because the uncorroborated testimony of a single victim may suffice as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in cases involving sexual offenses, -78 , -17 (1974), a trial court must find the Rule 404(c) standard met when an alleged act is supported by a victim’s statement, unless the victim’s account is physically impossible or otherwise so equivocal that reasonable persons could not accept it as true.
- State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Valentine
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-78 (1974) (uncorroborated testimony of sexual assault victim is sufficient to uphold conviction).
- State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
State v. Meyer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–78 (1974) (holding uncorroborated testimony by victim is sufficient to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt unless the account is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person would believe it).
- State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
State v. McPherson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
not required to sustain a conviction where the totality of the circumstances demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 42, (“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”); (conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony of the victim of a sexual assault unless “the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it”).
- State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-
State v. Vega
262 P.3d 628
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-78 , -17 (1974) ( , (uncorroborated testimony by victim is sufficient to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt unless the account is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person would believe it)).
- State v. Tucker 574 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1978
-
State v. Tucker
574 P.2d 1295
Ariz. 1978
Counsel for appellant frankly states that he “seeks to make a record on this argument in view of future appeals and future changes in the law and to avoid a waiver of appellant’s objection to his trial by an all white jury.” , is dispositive of this issue.
- State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Munoz 561 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Munoz 561 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Pike 557 P.2d 1068 Ariz. 1976
-
State v. Pike
557 P.2d 1068
Ariz. 1976
State v. Vandeveer, 23 Ariz.App.
- State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Kidwell 556 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Kidwell 556 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975