Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. West, 250 P.3d 1188.

680 citing documents.

State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
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).
State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Welfenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Welfenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tafoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tafoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶9 We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), viewing the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
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).
State v. Lindstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lindstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 15 (2011) (citation omitted).
State v. Strickland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Strickland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 15 (2011) (citation omitted).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 22 (App. 2023); ¶ 15 (2011).
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
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).
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶27 When ruling on a Rule 20 motion based on a lack of substantial evidence, the superior court must consider “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.” ¶ 16 (2011) (cleaned up); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kaymaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kaymaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Balderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Balderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶22 “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 5 STATE v. BALDERAS Decision of the Court fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) (
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ahrens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ahrens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶15 We review the superior court’s denial of a Rule 20 motion and whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction de novo and will affirm “unless no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 39 (App. 2007); ¶¶ 15-16 (2011).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶18 When determining the sufficiency of the evidence, “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.” ¶ 16 (2011) (cleaned up); (“To set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” (citation omi