Cited by

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

264 citing documents.

State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
‘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.” , cert.
State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Tison, 129 Ariz 546, 552, cert.
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
“If reasonable [persons] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.” , ( , )
State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
180 , 74 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982); State v. (Raymond) Tison, , (court held that co-felon/father’s influence over his sons did not constitute a mitigating factor for them), cert.
State v. Larriva 870 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Cordero 851 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Cordero 851 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
(involved principal liability under prior criminal code provision A.R.S.
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Saez 845 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Saez 845 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
“ ‘If reasonable [persons] may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial.’ ” Id., , cert.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
180 , 74 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982) (despite young age, minimal prior criminal activity of defendant, and convictions based on the felony murder rule, death penalty affirmed upon finding that the killings were done for pecuniary gain and in an especially cruel, heinous or depraved manner); State v. Tison (Raymond), , cert.
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
1492 , 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982) ( , cert.
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
1492 , 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982) ( , cert.
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
The standard of review upon appeal is “whether there was sufficient evidence that a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” , (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. McMillen 742 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. McMillen 742 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Felix 737 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Felix 737 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
We have defined substantial evidence as “ ‘more than a scintilla and is such proof as a reasonable mind would employ to support the conclusion reached.’ ” See also, , citing State v. (Raymond) Tison, , cert.
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Kreps 706 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1985
State v. Kreps 706 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985