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 v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    “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. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    “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. Schwartz 935 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Schwartz 935 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Walker, 181 Ariz. at 478 , 891 P.2d at 945 ( , ).
  • State v. Bass 911 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Bass 911 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    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. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    “Substantial evidence is more than , a mere scintilla and is *249 such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id.
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla” of evidence; it is evidence that “ ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67 , 796 P.2d at 869 ( , ).
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    “Substantial evidence” for these purposes 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. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    “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.’” Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67 , 796 P.2d at 869 ( , ).
  • State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    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. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
  • State v. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
    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. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
    “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.’” Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67 , 796 P.2d at 869 , ( , ).
  • State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
    “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.’ ” Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67 , 796 P.2d at 869 ( , ).
  • State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
    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. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
    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. Van Winkle 719 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Van Winkle 719 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    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. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Our supreme court has ruled that evidence is substantial enough if a reasonable person “could accept [it] as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    at 419 , , where the court, citing Jones and Mosley, supra, said, “Evidence is sufficient to survive a motion for directed verdict of acquittal when reasonable minds may differ whether the evidence establishes guilty knowledge.” 129 Ariz.
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
    -53 , -62 (1981); , cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    “ ‘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.”