Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

State v. Vega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Vega 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.”
State v. Giunta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Giunta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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.” , (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Opinion of the Court ¶7 We review a trial court’s ruling on a Rule 20 motion de novo, asking “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.” ¶¶ 15-16
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the ruling de novo, asking “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, ( ).
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“‘[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.’”
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
3 STATE v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ( ).
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
When considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, the relevant question is whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 16 (2011) ().
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” of evidence, and is evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hannah 355 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hannah 355 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”); (“Where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a conviction, we will reverse a trial court’s denial of a Rule 20 motion [for judgment of acquittal].”) ().
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
He specifically argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed third degree burglary because the State failed to prove that the property was “a fenced commercial yard.” ¶8 A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by “substantial evidence.” -67, -69 (1990).
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
This evidence was 8 STATE v. SANDOVAL Decision of the Court more than a “mere scintilla,” and, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, was sufficient to permit the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the pills at issue were clonazepam.
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A criminal conviction requires substantial evidence, which is “more than a mere scintilla.”
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 16, ( ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“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.’” ( ).