Cited by

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

324 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“‘Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id., (“To set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.”).
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” and it “may be either circumstantial or direct,”
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
(refusing to consider juror affidavit that stated “the jury discussed defendant’s failure to take the stand”).
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
¶11 We review the denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, considering only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling, ¶ 9
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to 2 support a conclusion of a defendant‟s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Organ 234 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Organ 234 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“‘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 of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(concluding “‘customary and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to close the victim’s estate’” constitute economic loss for restitution purposes)
State of Arizona v. Steven Dwayne Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Steven Dwayne Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
A party seeking to authenticate evidence based on a chain of custody “must show continuity of possession, but it need not disprove every remote possibility of tampering.”
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Because the trial court’s contrary 6 Citing Arizona’s well-established general rule that we may only consider evidence presented at the suppression hearing in addressing a trial court’s pretrial ruling on a motion to suppress, the state contends we should not consider Detective Gerencser’s trial testimony.
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
P., 17 A.R.S., which is proof that reasonable persons could find “sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 290
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review only the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress, and we view it in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling
State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“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 of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
requires the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal before the verdict is rendered “if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” “‘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. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, ¶ 49
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
[and consider] only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.”
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Max Valencia Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Max Valencia Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 284