Cited by

“When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.”

“When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.”

See, (“an appellate court will not reweigh the evidence”); Janusz, 157 Ariz. at 506 (“we will examine the record to determine whether the decision was unreasonable .

“When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.”

(“When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be 3 STATE v. GARCIA Decision of the Court submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgmen

See, (“When the evidence supporting a verdict is challenged on appeal, an appellate court will not reweigh the evidence.

¶ 61 (2002); –600 (1997).

(“When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and trial court has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.”).

“When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the [superior court] has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.”

-600 (1997) (explaining unfair prejudice results only when “the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis”) (citing Mott, 187 Ariz. at 545-46).

–600 (1997) (explaining not all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial, only evidence that “has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror” (quoting Mott, 187 Ariz. at 545)).

–600 (1997) (“[N]ot all harmful evidence is unfairly prejudicial.”) The evidence of Ramos-Ramirez’s aberrant sexual propensity to commit non-consensual acts was also probative because it cast doubt on his trial defense that he had a prior intimate relationship with A.D.

404(b); (determination of intent is “proper purpose” for admission of other crimes under Rule 404(b)); (prior sexual assault admissible to show defendant’s intent to assault victim against her will).

“When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has *28 no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.”

–600 (1997) (Unfair prejudice results only when “the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis.”).

The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction, and all reasonable inferences will be resolved against a defendant.”