Cited by

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

696 citing documents.

State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Riggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Riggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Substantial evidence may be direct or circumstantial and 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 omitted).
State v. Mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 23 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 15 (2011)).
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Cerrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Cerrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 23 (App. 2018) ( ¶¶ 15–16 (2011)).
State v. Eznack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Eznack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Purcell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hodge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Purcell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hodge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State Kingston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State Kingston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 5 (2014); ¶ 15 (2011).
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at 591–92 ¶ 22 ( ¶ 16 (2011).
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶16 In determining whether substantial evidence would support a conviction for purposes of ruling on 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) ().
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Conchola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Conchola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rothrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rothrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 16 (2011) (citation omitted).