Cited by

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

183 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Kevin Ottar and Ruan Junior Hamilton 302 P.3d 622 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Kevin Ottar and Ruan Junior Hamilton 302 P.3d 622 Ariz. 2013
§ 1-213; ¶ 20, (noting that “control is not a technical term” and “has a commonly understood meaning”).
State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
amante, ¶ 10 , (holding that where defendant was charged with misconduct involving weapons, in order to prove constructive possession over a gun on the driver’s side floorboard of a car, the State “bore the burden of proving that defendant 1) knew that the gun was on the driver’s side floorboard and 2) he exercised control over it.”); ¶ 26 , (holding there was sufficient evidence to support conviction for misconduct involving weapons where the State showed the defendant “(1) knew that the guns w
State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bhatt 260 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bhatt 260 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 23 “No 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.” ¶27
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
¶ 16, 1 Rudolph J. Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona 1-2 (2d ed. 1993) (noting the Commission’s “research[]” into the MPC).
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
¶ 28 This court reviews claims of insufficient evidence “only to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.”
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Lee Hinden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Lee Hinden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Model Penal Code (Official 1962 Draft and Revised Comments 1985); , (noting Arizona adopted Model Penal Code in 1978); 1 Rudolph J. Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona 1-2 (2d ed.1993) (noting role of Model Penal Code as source of 1978 code revisions).
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
III ¶15 Although we review de novo whether a jury instruction correctly states the law, considered as a whole, jury instructions need only be “substantially free from error.” ¶ 15, (internal quotation marks omitted).
Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
irmed “‘unless we must say as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing.’” Murillo, 79 Ariz. at 9, 281 P.2d at 791, (same); (same); (court reviewing claim of insufficient evidence in criminal case must ask if reasonable factfinder could have found evidence sufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); 633 P.
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(evidence must permit rational trier of fact to find elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt).