Cited by

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

324 citing documents.

State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
7 STATE v. SANDOVAL Decision of the Court ¶24 “Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 49, ( ).
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Villalobos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Villalobos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the [jury] verdict, and we resolve all inferences against the defendant.”
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Authenticating evidence by establishing chain of custody requires showing “continuity of possession,” and such a showing “need not disprove ‘every remote possibility of tampering.’” ( ).
State v. Brabham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Brabham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We will not disturb the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Such motions “‘are disfavored and should be granted with great caution.’”
State v. Serna 307 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
8 guilt verdict, not the later sentencing order.4 Hickle, 129 Ariz. at 332, 631 P.2d at 114 (finding untimely a motion filed twenty-one days after the guilt verdict, but before sentencing); (“Defendant’s motion for new trial based on the state’s failure to disclose was made more than three months after the jury returned its guilty verdict and was therefore untimely pursuant to rule 24.1 .
State v. Salazar 298 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Salazar 298 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Randall Shannon Gray 295 P.3d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶2 A motion for a judgment of acquittal should be granted only if “there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” Id.
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 288 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 288 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(we look only to facts presented at suppression hearing).