Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Spears, 908 P.2d 1062.

324 citing documents.

State v. Sernas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(finding attorneys’ fees incurred to close victim’s estate “are 4 STATE v. REED Opinion of the Court proper restitutionary items” where no evidence indicates the fees incurred “were unreasonable or contrary
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Hermanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hermanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(funeral expenses recoverable as restitution); Blanton, 173 Ariz. at 520 (third party can collect funeral expenses as restitution).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(finding circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction).
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The Islands v. Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The Islands v. Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Substantial evidence means proof that a reasonable person “could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 3 (App. 2011) ().
State v. Castillejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
(finding sole aggravator of pecuniary gain was particularly strong given that “it was the only motive” for the murder and not simply a “robbery gone awry which result[ed] in a death”).
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Probable cause to conduct a search exists when ‘a reasonably prudent person, based upon the facts known by the officer, would be justified in concluding that the items sought are connected with criminal activity and that they would be found at the place to be searched.’” ().
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion, and reviews “constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.” ¶ 62
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court looks only at the evidence presented to the trial court during the suppression hearing.”).
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444).
State v. Valencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valencia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted).
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Puleo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Puleo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The denial of a motion to suppress evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2014), and we review the trial court’s denial based solely on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing
Magallanes v. Magallanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Magallanes v. Magallanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10 (App. 2009) (noting superior court has broad discretion in ruling on motion for new trial).
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
(concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a new trial without first holding an evidentiary hearing when a juror’s post-verdict affidavit stated that jurors had considered notes from an alternate juror but did not indicate that the notes containe
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444).
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016