Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nash, 694 P.2d 222.

406 citing documents.

State v. Fahr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984)
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996); -98, -28 (1985) (adopting the Strickland test).
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
And although he argues there are “innocent explanations” for why Smith’s DNA was found on N.S.’s underwear, “the State is not required to disprove ‘every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence.’”
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[I]t is unnecessary for the prosecution to negate every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence.”
State v. Parks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Urosevic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Urosevic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064
State v. Santos Barajas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Santos Barajas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)
State v. Piedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Piedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); 2
State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The State need not disprove “every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The State does not have “to negate every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence.”
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
A conviction “may rest solely on circumstantial proof,” , but mere “[speculation concerning possibilities is an insufficient basis” to sustain a conviction.
State of Arizona v. Victor Manuel Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by