Cited by

¶ 15 (2017) (“Appellate courts .

¶22 We review for abuse of discretion the superior court’s decision whether to provide a jury instruction, and whether to grant a new trial, ¶ 10 (2017).

“It is primarily the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and to find the facts.” ¶ 19 (2017).

This court reviews a ruling on a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion, “given the record and circumstances of the case.” (citation omitted); –51 ¶¶ 11–25 (2017) (discussing broad discretion afforded to a trial court in addressing a motion for new trial in criminal and civil cases).

¶ 19 (2017) (“It is primarily the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and to find the facts.”).

¶ 10, 49 ¶ 15 (2017) (citations omitted).

¶ 21, 48 ¶ 11 (2017) (“Arizona courts use essentially the same standard” for new trial motions in civil and criminal cases.).

¶ 21 (2017) (describing, in reviewing an appeal from a new trial based on a claim the verdict was contrary to the evidence, the deference owed to the trial judge).

Hays, 95 Ariz. at 265.2 ¶17 Despite the substantial parity between our civil and criminal standards for motions for a new trial, our legislature’s retaining the civil provisions extending our review to civil motions for new trial but repealing the criminal statute, shows that our review is limited in the criminal context.3 See Curtis v. Morris, 184 Ariz. 2 The 1995 legislative amendment also post-dated Smith, 171 Ariz. 50

10 –50, ¶¶ 14–17 (2017).

¶71 Appellate courts will “defer to the factual findings of the jury and generally will not set aside the verdict unless no evidence supports it.” ¶ 15 (2017).

¶ 28 (2017) (“The appellate court’s role is not to weigh the evidence.”).

6 KUNASEK v. JOHNSON, ¶¶ 10–11 (2017) (ruling on new trial based on verdict contrary to the evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion).

The superior court judge “sits as a thirteenth juror, and [she], as well as the jury must be convinced that the weight of the evidence sustains the verdict, or it is [her] imperative duty to set it aside.” ¶ 14 (2017) (citation omitted).

When deciding whether to grant a Rule 20 motion, “the trial judge must review the evidence in the ‘light most favorable to the state, and all reasonable inferences are to be resolved against the defendant’ to decide if a reasonable person could fairly conclude the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 17 (2017) ().

Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 151, ¶ 18 ( ¶ 28 (2017)).

When considering a Rule 20 motion, this court reviews “‘the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, and all reasonable inferences are to be resolved against the defendant’ to decide if a person could reasonably conclude the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 17 (2017) ().

While we review claims of insufficient evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt," ¶ 22 (2007); ¶ 28 (2017) ("The appellate court does not sit as the 'fourteenth' juror.