Cited by

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).

We, therefore, ask only whether the record contains “substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” ¶ 14 (2011).

Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, suffices to support a conviction if “reasonable persons could accept [the proof] as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) (citation omitted).

¶ 15 (2011); Hurd, 223 Ariz. at 52 ¶ 16.

P. 20(a)(1); ¶ 14 (2011).

¶22 “[E]vidence to support a conviction exists when ‘reasonable persons could accept [it] as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of [a] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 72 (2015) ( ¶ 16 (2011)).

It requires “such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” (quoting Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67).