Cited by

¶27 When ruling on a Rule 20 motion based on a lack of substantial evidence, the superior court must consider “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) (cleaned up); Ariz. R. Crim.

¶22 “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 5 STATE v. BALDERAS Decision of the Court fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) (

¶15 We review the superior court’s denial of a Rule 20 motion and whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction de novo and will affirm “unless no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 39 (App. 2007); ¶¶ 15-16 (2011).

¶18 When determining the sufficiency of 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 (2011) (cleaned up); (“To set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” (citation omi

‘may not re-weigh the facts or disregard 5 STATE v. PENNINGTON Decision of the Court inferences that might reasonably be drawn from the evidence,’ and we may not find the evidence insufficient ‘when reasonable minds may differ.’” Dansdill, 246 Ariz. at 600 ¶ 19 ( ¶ 18 (2011)).

the court must enter a judgment of acquittal on any offense charged in an indictment, information, or complaint if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” 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.” ¶ 16 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Put another way, in reviewing the denial of a Rule 20 motion, “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) (cleaned up) (emphasis in original).

Our role is to determine “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).

“[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 (2011) (cleaned up).