Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mathers, 796 P.2d 866.
- 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.’” ( ).
- 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