Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().
  • 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
    ¶ 16 (quoting State v. Mathers , , 66, , 868 (1990) ).
  • 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. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    " State v. Sharma , , ¶ 7, (quoting State v. Mathers , , 67, , 869 (1990) ).
  • State v. Donaldson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “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 [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Tamala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Tamala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶25 Sufficient evidence may be direct or circumstantial and “‘is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate’” to “‘support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013) ().
  • State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “[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.” (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
  • State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().
  • State v. Dutra 426 P.3d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Dutra 426 P.3d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16 ().
  • State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “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 [a] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ().
  • State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “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.’” ().
  • State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    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. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    "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.'" ().
  • State v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Carrizoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Carrizoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    We will not reverse the superior court’s denial unless “there is a complete absence of probative facts to support [the convictions].”
  • State v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Escalante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Escalante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    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.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Valdenegro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Substantial evidence is such proof “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ().
  • State v. Valdenegro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Substantial evidence is proof that “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017