Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“‘[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) (emphasis omitted).
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is more than 4 STATE v. OHANLON Decision of the Court 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. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Yancy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Yancy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Substantial evidence 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.”
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In support of his contention, which holds that “[s]peculation concerning possibilities is an insufficient basis to sustain [a conviction].” We do not quarrel with this point of law, but Lockwood’s reliance on Mathers is unavailing.
State v. Dawes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dawes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶4 We do not reweigh 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.” ¶ 16, ( ).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at ¶ 16 ( ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
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 of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
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 of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶ 16, (emphasis omitted).
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“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. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 5 64, 67
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“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. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Karama Azizi Mwandishi 278 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Karama Azizi Mwandishi 278 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
See Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 45 (1982) (stating Due Process Clause prohibits convictions based upon legally insufficient evidence); cf. State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, 492 ¶ 19, (“[I]f the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the conviction, the charges must be dismissed.”).
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011