Cited by

‘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).

Likewise, we review the denial of a Rule 20(a) motion for acquittal for “whether the record contains substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” ¶ 14 (2011) (cleaned up).

“Both direct and circumstantial evidence should be considered in determining whether substantial evidence supports a conviction.” ¶ 16 (2011).

The “question of the sufficiency of 2 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal.” ¶ 15 (2011).

We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and 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.” ¶¶ 15-16 (2011) (citation omitted).