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. Jones, 610 P.2d 51.

218 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    to support a conclusion of defendant‟s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.‟” Id., (alteration in Jones).
  • State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
  • State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
    at 67, 796 P.2d at 869 (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, ).
  • State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    at 67 , 796 P.2d at 869 ( , ).
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Lee Hinden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Lee Hinden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (“Where the evidence raises a question of fact for the jury and such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to sustain conviction, the denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal is not error.”).
  • State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
    Substantial evidence exists when there is “such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ( ).
  • State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
    to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 16, (alteration in original) ( ).
  • State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
    to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    beyond reasonable doubt’”)
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Substantial evidence is such proof that “ ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” , ( , ).
  • State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Substantial evidence is such proof that “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” , ( , ).
  • State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    Substantial evidence is that which “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    Evidence is sub stantial if “ ‘reasonable persons could accept [it] as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’
  • State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
    Substantial evidence is that which “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • 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
    There was ample evidence which “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    There was ample evidence which “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a 20 conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    “[W]here a defendant knows of the existence and identity of a witness before trial and makes no effort to obtain the witness’ testimony, such testimony will not ordinarily justify a new trial.” Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 427 , 661 P.2d at 1128 ; , State v. Anderson, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”
  • State v. Fontes 986 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Fontes 986 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    “ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”
  • 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
    “ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
    “ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Tiscareno 950 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Tiscareno 950 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” Substantial evidence is proof “sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”