DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arredondo, 746 P.2d 484.

199 citing documents.

  • State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    “To set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    In reviewing such a claim, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and will not set aside a jury’s verdict unless it “clearly appear[s] that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.”
  • State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    We will not disturb a defendant’s conviction unless there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the verdict, and unless rational jurors could not have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    However, “[t]o set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury,” , (citation omitted), and we do not find this to be the case.
  • State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    “To set aside a [ ] verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that under no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the [fact-finder].” , (citation omitted).
  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
    We have therefore held that the state must prove that the defendant had the “intent to promote the offense of murder and an agreement with another that one will do the actual killing.” P.2d 1 (1983).
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    To set aside a conviction because of insufficient evidence, “it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the [trier-of-fact].”
  • State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Yoshida 986 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Yoshida 986 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Davila 938 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Davila 938 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Denman 923 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Denman 923 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    see also Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 778 , 95 S.Ct.
  • State v. Poundstone 880 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Poundstone 880 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    We will set aside a jury verdict only if it clearly appears that “upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.”
  • State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    To set aside a verdict for insufficient evidence, “it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the [trier-of-faet].”
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
    Upon review, we consider the evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.”
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    The facts outlined above, viewed in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, , were clearly sufficient.
  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Rodriguez 830 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Rodriguez 830 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Gallagher 818 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Gallagher 818 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    FACTS Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, , the facts are as follows.
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Albrecht 762 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Albrecht 762 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988