Cited by

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

696 citing documents.

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
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Mungia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Blythe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, ¶ 16 (2011) (substantial evidence is “such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate 5 STATE v. BLYTHE Decision of the Court and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonab
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“‘[T]he 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.’”
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
( ¶ 16 (2011)) (internal quotes omitted).
State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, “’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) (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
However, on review, our supreme court clarified that the “question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.” 4 (West II).
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
When considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, the relevant question is whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) ().
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Similarly, the United States Supreme Court stated that if the State was successful on appeal, it would result “in the reinstatement of the general finding[s] of guilty, rather than in further factual proceedings relating to guilt or innocence.” United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1, 3-4 (1976); ¶ 13, (stating that if the ruling is reversed on appeal, “the verdict of guilt can simply be reinstated”).
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
When a court grants a defendant’s post-verdict motion, the State’s success on appeal results “in the reinstatement of the general finding of guilt, rather than in further factual proceedings relating to guilt or innocence.” U.S. v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1, 3-4 (1976); ¶ 13 (2011) (stating that if a verdict is vacated and subsequently dismissed, if the ruling is reversed on appeal, “the verdict of guilt can simply be reinstated”); cf. U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 581 n.2 (1983) (reversa