Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stroud, 103 P.3d 912.

160 citing documents.

State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith 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. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
We review the sufficiency of evidence to determine whether “substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” ¶ 6
State v. Kendrick 306 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Kendrick 306 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 12 Further, we are not writing on a clean slate when it comes to the meaning of “restraint.” Our supreme court addressed the meaning of the term in the context of custody for resisting arrest and escape, and stated “the common understanding of the word connotes controlling, limiting, or restricting the movement of another.” ¶ 9
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Substantial evidence is that which “‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” , -14 (2005)
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
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
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“Substantial evidence has been described as ‘more than a mere scintilla’ of evidence; but it nonetheless must be evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
2 See State v. *400 Stroud, , -14 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Substantial evidence is “evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’” -14 (2005)
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
ng.” State v. 6 Section 13-604(M) provides that “[c]onvictions for two or more offenses committed on the same occasion shall be counted as only one conviction for purposes of this section.” 9 Stroud, ¶¶ 20-21, -62, ¶¶ 9-10, -82 (2007) (holding that even when an attorney stipulates “to the existence of a prior conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement,” the judge’s failure to give the colloquy required under Arizona Ru
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
State v. Lee 176 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Lee 176 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State of Arizona v. Lance Christian Hamblin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Lance Christian Hamblin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
Substantial evidence is evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” -13, ¶ 6, -15 (2005) ( ).