Cited by

ROWN Decision of the Court ¶19 In reviewing whether sufficient evidence exists, we consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16, recognizing that a conviction may rest solely on circumstantial evidence, n.1 (1993); ¶ 16 (2009) (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.” ()).

Given that fundamental error applies, Meeds “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 21 (2009) (citations omitted); see also Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 142 ¶ 21.

¶ 44 (2009) (court must independently consider quality and strength of aggravating factors).

See State v. Bearup , , ¶ 16, (defendant's conduct and comments circumstantial evidence of intent); see also State v. Wilson , , 74, , 55 (App. 1978) ("Obviously there are times when intent may be inferred from conduct where it is plainly indicated as a matter of logical probability.").

[A d]efendant’s conduct and comments are evidence of [her] state of mind.” ¶ 16 (2009) (citation omitted).

¶ 40 (2017) (conjunctive); ¶ 12 (2016) (same); ¶ 12 (2009) (same), ¶ 58 (2014) (disjunctive); ¶ 16 (2014) (same); ¶ 13 (2010) (same); ¶ 21 (2009) (same).

¶38 Under fundamental error review, Brenda “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused [her] prejudice.” ¶ 21 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) ( ¶ 21 (2008)).

ere the defendant hit the victim multiple times with a baseball bat before putting the bat through her neck as she moaned), –65 ¶ 50 (2013) (finding sufficient evidence where the defendant admitted that the victim’s body was getting cold when he dragged her into his car, drove somewhere, pushed her out of the car and then ran over her), ¶ 52 (2009) (finding sufficient evidence where the defendant had beaten the victim “nearly to death” with an aluminum baseball bat and then about an hour later c

¶ 58, (taking judicial notice of superior court records).

See, ¶ 62, ¶ 56, Dann, 220 Ariz. at 358 ¶ 10, 207 P.3d at 611; ¶ 44, State v. Henry (Henry II), State v. Henry (Henry I), State v. Williams, 166 Ariz.

to support a conclusion of [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 16, (citation omitted).

¶ 16 (2009) (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.

Accordingly, Juarez-Orci “‘bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.’”

“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” ( ); ¶ 23

to support a conclusion of [a] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (first alteration in Bearup)

–71 ¶¶ 34–35, –92 (2009) (concluding that a defendant who held a knife and encircled victim with others was a major participant in kidnapping that ended with victim’s murder).

to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (alteration in Bearup).