Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tison, 633 P.2d 355.

264 citing documents.

State v. Alfartousi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
29 STATE OF ARIZONA V. EDWARD LITTLETON MCCAULEY Opinion of the Court and “as a result of the inadequate questioning, the jury selected was not fair, unbiased, and impartial.” Moody, 208 Ariz. at 451 ¶ 95; (“We will not disturb the trial court’s selection of the jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen.”).
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
If reasonable people “may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” ().
State v. Graves Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Graves Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(defendant must present evidence of a provable reality, not mere speculation).
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[I]ntent to engage in the criminal venture may be shown by the relationship of the parties and their conduct before and after the offense.”).
State v. Marusich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Marusich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See State v. 3 (“[P]roof of ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality not merely a matter of speculation.”).
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, (colorable claim of ineffective assistance requires more than vague speculation and conclusory allegations); (factual basis to support each element of the crime may be established by the defendant’s admissions); ¶ 12 (App. 2013
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction, and all reasonable inferences will be resolved against a defendant.”) ().
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We do not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence, (), or reweigh the evidence, (collecting cases).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
You should not guess about the reason any other person is absent from the courtroom.” 5 STATE v. TAYLOR Decision of the Court reached.” ().
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we determine de novo “whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Montaño, ¶ 43 (2003) ().
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence, Salman, 182 Ariz. at 361, and make no distinction between the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence, n.1 (1993).
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“The burden of establishing the ineffectiveness of trial counsel is upon a claimant, and proof of ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality not merely a matter of speculation.”).
State v. Colorado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Colorado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION ¶8 We review the sufficiency of evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
sections 12-120.21.A.1, 13-4031, and -4033.A.1 (West 2016).4 DISCUSSION ¶9 Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the sufficiency of evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“If reasonable [minds] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.”
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION ¶7 When evidence is challenged on appeal, it is viewed “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the sufficiency of evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”