DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nunez, 806 P.2d 861.

75 citing documents.

  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    *499 In order to withstand a motion for a judgment of acquittal, “the state must produce enough evidence that a reasonable person could conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” , ( , ), cert.
  • 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. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
    We have stated: A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when “no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.” 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.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
    We have stated: A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when “no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.” 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.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    (Grady inapplicable to single prosecution retried twice at defendant’s request); United States v. Bailin, 977 F.2d 270 (7th Cir.1992) (G rady inapplicable to retrial after mistrial).
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
    This court has stated that: A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when “no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.” 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.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    274 n. 2, , 863 n. 2 (1991) ("The defendant makes no separate argument based on the state constitutional provision; therefore, we do not separately discuss it.”).
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    2536 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984)
  • State ex rel. Dean v. Hantman 819 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State ex rel. Dean v. Hantman 819 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991