Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[T]he controlling question is solely whether the record contains ‘substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.’” ¶ 14 (2011) (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 15, (“This question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.”).
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 30 “[The] question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.” ¶ 15
State v. Armstrong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Armstrong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 16 (2011) (citation omitted).
State v. Hanss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hanss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Motten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Motten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
‘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, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence, and, in doing so, “‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict and will reverse only if there is a complete absence of substantial evidence to support the conviction.’” quoting State
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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, ( ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶14 The “question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.” ¶ 15, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Joann Bon 338 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Joann Bon 338 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 16, (“[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.” (citation omitted))
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[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.” ¶ 16, (citations omitted).
State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Estrada-Resendiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Estrada-Resendiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[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.” ¶16, (citation omitted).