Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mathers, 796 P.2d 866.

341 citing documents.

State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
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.’” ().
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
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.” ().
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
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.” ().
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
rmining whether substantial evidence would support a conviction for purposes of ruling on a Rule 20 motion, “the 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. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rothrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rothrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of [a] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2013) ().
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The relevant question on review is whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis in original).
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at ¶ 16 ( (emphasis in original)).
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“‘Substantial evidence,’ Rule 20’s lynchpin phrase, ‘is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of [a] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks omitted) ().
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support [the jury’s] conclusion.’” ().
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
(internal quotation marks omitted) ().
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
State v. Best Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Best Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,’” (), and may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, Pena, 209 Ariz. at 505, ¶ 7 ( ).
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “the 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.” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().
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
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “the 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.” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().
State v. Rael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at 562 ¶ 16 () (emphasis original).
State v. Ocain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Ocain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
3 STATE v. FRAZER Decision of the Court ().
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lopez-Clemente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lopez-Clemente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Substantial evidence is direct or circumstantial evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted).