Cited by

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

696 citing documents.

State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 15, 1The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 15 (2011) (citing Bible, 175 Ariz. at 595).
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
¶ 18, (“Thus, in ruling on a Rule 20 motion, unlike a motion for a new trial under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.1(c)(1), a trial court may not re- weigh the facts or disregard inferences that might reasonably be drawn from the evidence.”).
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McClain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McClain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
had suffered a “serious physical injury.” ¶¶ 15-16
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 30 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 15 (2011)), and will reverse “only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction,” (-25 (1976)).
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011) (citation omitted), and we will not “reweigh” the evidence to decide whether we would reach the same conclusion as the trier of fact, (citations omitted).
State v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 16 , (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
4 STATE v. FLOREZ Opinion of the Court ¶7 We review a trial court’s ruling on a Rule 20 motion de novo, asking “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.” ¶¶ 15-16
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 30 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 15 (2011)), and will reverse “only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction,” (-25 (1976)).
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the ruling de novo, asking “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, ( ).