Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review claims of insufficient evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), but "view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts," ¶ 2 (2016).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hamby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hamby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Harm, 236 Ariz. at 406, ¶ 11 ( ¶ 15 (2011)).
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 15–16 (2011); ¶ 2 (App. 2007).
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, Valencia, 186 Ariz. at 495.
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bernal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bernal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[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) ().
State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lacy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lacy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gorla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gorla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review the denial of a Rule 20 motion de novo, asking “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).
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by