Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rienhardt, 951 P.2d 454.

249 citing documents.

State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997).
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Small Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Small Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
After reading Small his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Small 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
While represented by counsel, Quiroz 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
On cross-examination, Baker admitted to having a “problem” with methamphetamine and did not 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
that requires a trial judge to make it so.”
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
that requires a trial judge to make it so.”
State v. Gonzalez-Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gonzalez-Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
2This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
2This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997).
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[T]he question is whether there was sufficient evidence so that a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
This is so even when those facts are not contested because “the prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69 (1991); (“Notwithstanding an offer to stipulate to the cause of death, photographs of a murder victim are relevant if they help to illustrate what occurred.”).
State v. Magana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Magana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“There is nothing sanitary about murder, and there is nothing in Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid., that requires a trial judge to make it so.”
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Because he was on probation and had a felony conviction, he was subsequently sentenced to 15.75 years in prison, and was given 512 days of presentence 1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Noticing that a police cruiser had started following 1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).
State v. Carimbocas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carimbocas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
She was indicted for first degree murder, and two counts of child abuse, all dangerous crimes against children and domestic violence offenses.2 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89, -64 (1997).
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶4 In May 2013, the State charged Farr in a direct complaint with count one, theft of means of transportation, a Class 3 felony; count two, trafficking in stolen property in the second degree, a Class 3 felony, and 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997).
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pulotu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“The question is whether there was sufficient evidence so that a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Brookins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brookins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997).