Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lee, 944 P.2d 1204.

176 citing documents.

State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And because “[t]he credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury,” see Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc., the jurors were entitled to either reject or accept the officers’ testimony and we will not re-weigh the evidence on appeal
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A court cannot, however, enter a judgment of acquittal “[w]hen reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts.” ().
State v. Carveiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Carveiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶9 “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.” ().
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 29, (noting it is the province of the jury, not the appellate court, to assess the witnesses’ credibility) ( ).
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 10, (noting that any error “will not justify reversal if the evidence of other crimes would have been admissible at separate trials under Rule 404(b)”).
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
That being the case, “‘when reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the [fact finder], and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.’” West, 226 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 18, 250 P.3d at 1192 ( ).
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Thus, “[w]hen 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.”
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Thus, “[w]hen 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.”
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶ 18, quoting State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
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
Hausner contends that his crimes, although similar, were not part of a common scheme or plan, P.2d 1204 (1997).
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
¶18 On the other hand, “[w]hen 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.” P.2d at 1272
State v. LEBRUN 213 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. LEBRUN 213 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(the defendant’s incourt testimony regarding his involvement in separate murders made the details of each murder admissible and relevant to the other under Rule 404(b)).
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
(finding that the evidence did not demonstrate violence beyond that necessary to kill when the record did not establish the time between the four gunshot wounds or the order in which the shots were fired); (finding the
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
at 161-62 ¶ 106, 42 P.3d at 592-93 ; , (finding insufficient evidence of gratuitous violence when victim was hit four times by nine gunshots and record did not indicate time between gunshots or order in which they were fired); , (finding gratuitous violence n
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
(finding that defendant’s descriptions of his involvement in different murders satisfied the clear and convincing standard for admissibility of the murders under Rule 404(b)).