Cited by

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

183 citing documents.

State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 22 (2007) (citation omitted).
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
The statute does not define “objects” or “goods.” Absent statutory definitions, courts generally apply common meanings, ¶ 20, and may resort to dictionary definitions, State ex rel.
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Yuma County Airport Authority 361 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2015
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Yuma County Airport Authority 361 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2015
Absent statutory definitions, courts generally give words their ordinary meaning, ¶ 20, and may look to dictionary definitions, State ex rel.
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A jury instruction “need only be ‘substantially free from error.’” ¶ 15 (2009) ( ¶ 15 (2007)).
State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, ¶ 20 (2007) (no error by failing to define “control”); (no error by failing to define “endanger”).
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“In the absence of statutory definitions, we give words their ordinary meaning.” ¶ 20 (2007); see also A.R.S.
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Burke relies on State v. Cox, which states, “Arizona criminal law has recognized only four culpable mental states: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and with criminal negligence.” ¶ 16, see also A.R.S.
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 22, (internal quotations and citation omitted).
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Because “[n]o rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the [finder-of-fact],” ¶ 27, (– 57, –89 (1974)), I question whether an appellate court may consider witness credibility in determining sufficiency of the evidence, (recognizing that “
State of Arizona v. Jose Raul Juarez-Orci 342 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jose Raul Juarez-Orci 342 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, ¶ 27, (finding sufficient evidence of dominion or control where guns were found in the trunk of the vehicle the defendant owned and was driving, and the defendant acknowledged the presence of the guns).
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 27, (holding that jury resolves witness credibility).
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
Absent statutory definitions, courts apply common meanings, ¶ 20, and may look to dictionaries, State ex rel.
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jury instructions “need only be ‘substantially free from error.’” Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. at 53, ¶ 15, 209 P.3d at 633 ( ¶ 15, ).
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 27, (- 57, -89 (1974)).
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence presented at trial to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and do so while “viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” ¶22
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 22, (internal quotations and citations omitted).
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 22, (internal quotations and citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
But “‘[n]o rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.’” quoting State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555, 556-57, -89 (1974).
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013