Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

State v. Stevens 909 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Stevens 909 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule(s)”)
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Sanchez 892 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sanchez 892 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
20; , (quoting Ariz. R.Crim.P.
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“Substantial evidence” for these purposes is evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” , (
State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Poundstone 880 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Poundstone 880 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Ekmanis 885 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Ekmanis 885 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(under Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judgment of acquittal should be entered if there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction”).
State v. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
“A motion for acquittal made at the close of the prosecution’s case is tested on the sufficiency of the evidence at that point.”
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Under Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judgment of acquittal should be entered if there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
A judgment of acquittal under Rule 20 is appropriate only where there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
A judgment of acquittal is appropriate where there is “no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” Id.
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992