Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Greene, 967 P.2d 106.

223 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
¶138 “The terms ‘heinous’ and ‘depraved’ focus on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense.” ¶ 33 (1998).
State v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Samia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Samia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 19 (1998) (stating 1 Depending on the subsection, A.R.S.
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Substantial evidence is proof that a rational trier of fact could find sufficient to support a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
We do not merely compare the number of aggravating and mitigating factors, –44 ¶ 60 (1998), but “where significant mitigating evidence is balanced against a single aggravating factor, a serious question is raised as to whether a death sentence is warranted,” Marlow, 163 Ariz. at 72; see also Bocharski, 218 Ariz. at 499 ¶ 112 (when faced with “limited aggravation evidence and .
State v. Dodd 418 P.3d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dodd 418 P.3d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Greene , , 436 ¶ 12, , 111 (1998).
State v. Battle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Battle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶8 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State v. Kinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶7 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶7 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶8 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[we] construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998), recognized as abrogated on other grounds by McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015).
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
I. Background ¶2 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Everyone exited their cars and 1 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 17, “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).
State v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶7 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶10 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016