Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cox, 174 P.3d 265.

183 citing documents.

Mahmoodi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We review the sufficiency of the evidence "only to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict, 'viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.'" ¶ 22 (2007) ( ¶ 93 (2006), ).
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶17 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 22 (2007) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
State v. Amman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Amman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Navarro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Navarro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
3 STATE v. NAVARRO Decision of the Court ¶9 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, we view facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict to determine “whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.” ¶ 22 (2007).
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 22 (2007) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis omitted).
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
When reviewing the evidence, the question is whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶22 (2007) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Specifically, Dulin argues he is not the man in the surveillance video.3 ¶7 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 22 (2007) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of statutes and ru
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
verdict.” ¶ 22 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Robinson argues insufficient evidence supports his conviction and, therefore, his sentence is excessive and illegal.2 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 22 (2007) (citation omitted).
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 22 (2007); Rule 20(a).
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm’n, ¶ 28 (2015) (); ¶ 20 (2007) ( and A.R.S.
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 22 (2007) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
State v. Issa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Issa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 22 (2007) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 22 (2007) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version.
State v. Spry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Spry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We review the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial only to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, ‘viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.’” ¶ 22 (2007) (citation omitted).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“In the absence of statutory definitions, we give words their ordinary meaning.” ¶ 20 (2007) (); see also A.R.S.
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Because the superior court did not err in finding she was competent and her testimony was admissible, her credibility and “the weight and value to be given to [her] testimony are questions exclusively for the [fact-finder].” ¶ 27
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 17-21 (2007) (declining to interpret an “intent to use” mental state into the charge of possession).
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016