Cited by

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

696 citing documents.

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).
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by