Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Scott, 555 P.2d 1117.

142 citing documents.

State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” (-25, -19 (1976)).
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“To set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” -25, - 19 (1976) (“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”).
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” , (-25 , -19 (1976)).
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 STATE v. WOODS Decision of the Court only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” (-25, -19 (1976)).
State v. Gallegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gallegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” (-25, -19 (1976)).
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” , (-25 , -19 (1976)).
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
This is ordinarily a question to be determined by the trier of fact, id., and reversible error occurs “only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” -25 , -19 (1976).
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
P. 20(a))); -25 , -19 (1976) (“As long as there is substantial supporting evidence, we will not disturb [the July’s] determination.”).
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
-25 , -19 (1976) (citation omitted).
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
This court has held that “[Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” -25 , -19 (1976).
State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981
State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981
State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
State v. Edgar 605 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Edgar 605 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Littles 600 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Littles 600 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
State v. Parker 589 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Parker 589 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Mann 573 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Mann 573 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977