Cited by

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

696 citing documents.

State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
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) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
I. Sufficiency of Evidence ¶9 When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we 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).
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hickey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hickey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mullener Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mullener Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶22 We review questions of sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), and will vacate the jury’s finding of an aggravating circumstance only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, –69, ¶ 45 (2005).
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 15 (2011) (citation omitted).
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kamara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶9 The controlling question in considering a Rule 20 motion “is solely whether the record contains ‘substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.’” ¶ 14 (2011) (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 15 (2011) (citation omitted).
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 20–21, ¶ 72 (first alteration in original) ( ¶ 16 (2011)).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 20–21, ¶ 72 (first alteration in original) ( ¶ 15 (2011)).