Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Guerra, 778 P.2d 1185.

615 citing documents.

State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.1 We now review the entire record for reversible error, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Cruz
State v. Walters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Walters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zermeno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zermeno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Zermeno
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Piggee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Piggee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Safely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Safely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Fausto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Fausto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Reidhead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Reidhead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence to decide if it would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact.”
State v. Stunson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Brislan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence to decide if it would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact.”
State v. Stunson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Brislan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Frias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Frias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McCabe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McCabe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶9 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we will “not reweigh the evidence to decide if [we] would reach the same conclusions as the trier of fact.” ().
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Kluver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Kluver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018