Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hall, 65 P.3d 90.

99 citing documents.

State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Morris, 215 Ariz. at 333, ¶ 34, 160 P.3d at 212 ( ¶ 43 , ).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“‘[O]nly a reasonable inference of the corpus delicti need exist’ before incriminating statements may be considered, and circumstantial evidence can support such an inference.” Morris, 215 Ariz. at 333, ¶ 34, 160 P.3d at 212 ( ¶ 43, ).
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
“A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct generally will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 16
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 49, ( ).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 49, (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
For example, ¶ 19 , our supreme court analyzed the effect of an ex parte communication between the bailiff and the jury by examining several factors, including, as relevant here, “whether the prejudicial statement was ambiguously phrased” and “whether the statement was insufficiently prejudicial given
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
¶10 We review a “trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct” for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 16, and review de novo matters involving interpretation of court rules, ¶ 5
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“‘Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
State of Arizona v. Steven Dwayne Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Steven Dwayne Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-100 (2003) (only when suspect invokes right to counsel is state precluded from reinitiating questioning without an attorney).
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(Rule 20 motion granted only when no substantial evidence presented).
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
The evidence supporting the inference may be circumstantial, ¶ 43 , and the evidence offered to support the inference need not even be admissible at trial.
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
¶ 43, (citing Smith v. United States, 348 12 U.S. 147, 152 (1954)).
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Denial of Rule 20 Motion ¶8 Rule 20 requires the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal before the verdict is rendered “if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” “‘Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, ¶ 49
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Garfield 92 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Garfield 92 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 43 , (discussing the corpus delicti rule and holding that the State had established the corpus delicti in a first-degree murder case).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
“Once the defendant shows that the jury has received and considered extrinsic evidence, prejudice must be presumed and a new trial granted unless the prosecutor proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not taint the verdict.” ___, ¶ 16, (citing Miller, 178 Ariz. at 558-60, 875 P.2d at 791-93).
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
455 ¶ 56, , 161 ¶ 25, State v. Cañez, , 156 ¶ 76, , 418 ¶ 30

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by