DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

264 citing documents.

  • State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Hanley 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
  • State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    A jury 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    DISCUSSION ¶6 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
  • State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we determine whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 43 , ( , ).
  • State v. LYCHWICK 218 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. LYCHWICK 218 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶ 14 , accord State v. Tison, 129 * cert.
  • Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ); (same); (court reviewing claim of insufficient evidence in criminal case must ask if reasonable factfinder could have found evidence sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); (Arizona’s “substantial evidence test” in criminal cases consistent with review required by Jackson).
  • State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    “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.” Walden, 183 Ariz. at 607, 905 P.2d at 986 ( , ).
  • State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
    Here, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    “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.” , (internal quotations omitted) ( , ), -08 , -68 (1996).
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    “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.” (internal quotations omitted) 17 ( ), -08, -68 (1996).
  • State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
    “If reasonable [persons] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Davila 938 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Davila 938 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    “If reasonable [persons] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then the evidence must be considered as substantial.” , cert.
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995