Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jones, 610 P.2d 51.

218 citing documents.

State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
If reasonable persons can accept the evidence presented as sufficient and adequate to support a conclusion that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence is “substantial.”
State v. Stewart 641 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Stewart 641 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981
State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981
State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
Rules of Criminal Procedure, rules 24.2(aX2), 32.1; , *368
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
but it can be error to grant a motion for directed verdict when the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom.
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Ganster, supra.
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
When, a defendant makes a motion for acquittal, he raises a question of the sufficiency of the evidence, , , but not of its competency.
State v. Van Winkle 616 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Van Winkle 616 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980