Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

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, ( ).
State v. Hearn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hearn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the denial of a Rule 20 motion and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction de novo, Harm, 236 Ariz. at 406, ¶ 11 ( ¶ 15 (2011)), and will reverse “only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction,” (-25 (1976)).
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sagarnaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sagarnaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[T]he controlling question is solely whether the record contains ‘substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.’” ¶ 14 (2011) (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 20 (judgment of acquittal is appropriate only “if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction); ¶ 16, (“Substantial evidence .
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“The controlling question is solely whether the record contains ‘substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.’” ¶ 14 (2011) (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016