Cited by

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

696 citing documents.

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
State v. Kendrick 306 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Kendrick 306 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 15 , (appellate court reviews ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal de novo); ¶ 8 , (appellate court reviews issues of statutory construction and interpretation de novo).
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
was less than clear and convincing.” , , (“[Q]uestion of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law....”).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
¶70 On a Rule 20 motion for a 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.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); ¶ 16
State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
4 and calls for a court to assess “whether the record contains ‘substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.’” quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
P. 20(a); ¶ 8, 562 ¶ 14, 1191 (2011).
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562 ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Karama Azizi Mwandishi 278 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Karama Azizi Mwandishi 278 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 15 , (explaining that the “question of sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal” and that we view “the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict”).