Cited by

¶ 15 (2011) (sufficient evidence); ¶ 5 (App. 2018) (statutory interpretation).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 While reviewing a challenge like Lopez-Cubas’ to the sufficiency of the evidence in a trial, we view that evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution” to ask whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) ().

¶ 15 (2011); Hurd, 223 Ariz. at 52 ¶ 16.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), “view[ing] the facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict[,]” ¶ 3 (App. 2003).

Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law reviewed de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, Parker, 231 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 72.

We review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction, “viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” ¶ 15 (2011) ().

In considering a motion pursuant to 3 STATE v. NGUYEN Decision of the Court Rule 20, “the controlling question is solely whether the record contains ‘substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.’” ¶ 14 (2011) (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.

¶¶ 15–16 (2011) (cleaned up).

Substantial evidence is “proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) (citation modified).

¶9 We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), viewing the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict

Substantial evidence is “proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

¶ 15 (2011) (citation omitted).

¶ 15 (2011) (citation omitted).

¶ 22 (App. 2023); ¶ 15 (2011).

is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) (cleaned up).