Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

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
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 16, (citations omitted).
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶15 In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “the controlling question is solely whether the record contains ‘substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.’“ ¶ 14 (2011) (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Leeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Lopata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015