Cited by

A guilty verdict may be affirmed based “primarily or entirely on circumstantial evidence,” even when there is “no direct evidence of the defendant’s… participation in [a] murder.” -94, ¶ 25 (1999).

¶20 A victim’s state of mind is relevant to show the defendant’s motive, ¶ 34, or when a defendant raises the defense of accident or suicide

¶¶ 26-28 (1999) (applying totality of circumstances test for sufficiency of evidence).

¶ 24 (1999) (directed verdict of acquittal warranted only in absence of substantial evidence).

Substantial evidence is “proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (quoting Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67, 796 P.2d at 869).

“An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.” ¶ 64

If the State “negligently fail[s] to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, P.2d 274 (1964), permits the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.” 503

¶ 60 , (profane statement by defendant was admissible notwithstanding Rule 403).

Accordingly, while a defendant must do more than simply speculate that the unpreserved items would have been helpful to his case, see, -64, -41 (App. 1996); he is entitled to an instruction if he can demonstrate that the lost evidence would have been material and potentially useful to a defense theory su

(“An 5 U.S. 39, 49-50 & 49 n.9 (1984)

(“objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy”).

26 The statement merely posed a hypothetical question and, therefore, was not admissible under the state-of-mind exception in Rule 803(3) because it neither described a “present feeling or future intent[],” nor did it “tend to prove relevant conduct of the declarant.” ¶¶ 32-33

See Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 45 (1982) (stating Due Process Clause prohibits convictions based upon legally insufficient evidence); cf. State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, 492 ¶ 19, (“[I]f the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the conviction, the charges must be dismissed.”).

2 , (“An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.”).

“A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a request for a Willits instruction when a defendant fails to establish 16 that the lost evidence would have had a tendency to exonerate him.” ¶ 62

this issue because she objected at trial that the opinion “call[ed] for a legal conclusion and [invaded] the purview of the jury” but on appeal “urges [us] to overturn long-established Arizona precedent and forbid police officers from opining about such matters in all cases.” “An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.”

¶¶ 50, 54-55, 91 (1999) (given state’s “thin case for murder,” prosecutor’s emphasis of improperly admitted evidence during closing argument contributed to finding of reversible error).

¶ 3 ‘We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 , (citation omitted); ¶ 27 , (stating that, in reviewing the record, we draw all reasonable inferences that support the verdict).