Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Th[e] question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.” ¶ 15
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.” ¶ 15
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 , construing “the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolv[ing] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Dawes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dawes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶4 We do not reweigh the evidence; “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, ( ).
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶7 “The question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.” ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Antone Alex Gill 319 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Antone Alex Gill 319 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
4 STATE v. GILL Opinion of the Court ¶9 In sum, whether we review the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion, see Chappell, 236 P.3d at 1181, or de novo, we find no error in the denial of the Rule 20 motions in this case.
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶6 Although we review the trial court’s ruling on a Rule 20 motion de novo, ¶¶ 14-15, we will reverse only if we find no substantial evidence to warrant conviction
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15, and consider “whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict,” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 218 ¶ 93, 141 P.3d at 393.
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
evidence is a question of law we review de novo.
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Substantial evidence is “‘such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 309 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 309 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“Th[e] question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013