Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
Substantial evidence exists when there 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. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“Substantial evidence is more than a ‘mere scintilla’ and is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” , ( , ).
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(conviction must be supported by substantial evidence; “[s]ubstantial evidence is more than .
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
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. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
P. “We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal for an abuse of discretion” and will reverse only if there is “‘a complete absence of probative facts to support a conviction.’” Alvarez, 107 P.3d at 353
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
at 369, 111 P.3d at 411 ( ).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and 32 is such 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. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
“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 v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Evidence is sub stantial if “ ‘reasonable persons could accept [it] as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“Substantial evidence is more than a *218 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.’ ” , (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Aiz.
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“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. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
“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. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“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. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“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. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
Defendant now claims that the judge erred in failing to rule on the first motion for judgment of acquittal because before Amaral testified there was “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”
State v. Gallow 914 P.2d 1311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Gallow 914 P.2d 1311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
(defendant entitled to acquittal absent substantial evidence to warrant conviction).
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995