Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hughes, 938 P.2d 457.

58 citing documents.

State v. Elizondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Elizondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“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 v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“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. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
by excluding irrelevant or inflammatory detail.” Payne, ().
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. George Willie Rios 528 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. George Willie Rios 528 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Substantial evidence is more than a “mere scintilla.” ().
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Substantial evidence is evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ¶ 50 (2012) ().
State v. Buzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Buzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
3 STATE v. BUZAN Decision of the Court ¶10 A “[j]udgment of acquittal is appropriate when there is no substantial evidence.”
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Navarro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Navarro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Substantial evidence is evidence— whether direct or circumstantial—that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” see Meeds, 244 Ariz. at 460, ¶ 9.
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
d in the daytime, in 11 STATE v. HANLEY Decision of the Court apartment complexes located in the same general area of Tucson” and where “the perpetrator entered a woman’s unlocked apartment shortly after he had the opportunity to observe the woman enter or leave the apartment alone”); -69 (1997) (finding strangulation murder and Molotov cocktail arson insufficiently similar where there were “only two likenesses—both victims were women who had angered defendant and [the same individual] may have
State v. Pina-Barajas 418 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Pina-Barajas 418 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Hughes , , 73, , 468 (1997) ; Prasertphong , , ¶ 22, 114 P.3d at 833 (evidence admissible under Rule 106 may be excluded if danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading jury, or waste of time substantially outweighs probative value).
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
2 Doody’s defense at trial was that he was not at the temple the day of the murders, was in no way involved in the murders and he was simply a “dupe” for Garcia.
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at 411-12, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d at 913-14 ( ) (internal quotations marks omitted).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
When other act evidence is admissible but prejudicial, the trial court must “limit the evidence to its probative essence (motive) by excluding irrelevant or inflammatory detail.”
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
Substantial evidence is evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a 25 guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Substantial evidence is that which “‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” , -14 (2005)
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“Substantial evidence has been described as ‘more than a mere scintilla’ of evidence; but it nonetheless must be evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict 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. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Substantial evidence is “evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’” -14 (2005)
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
Substantial evidence is evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” -13, ¶ 6, -15 (2005) ( ).
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 40 Substantial evidence is evidence that “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Arizona v. Cynthia D. Johnson 156 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Cynthia D. Johnson 156 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 593