Cited by

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

223 citing documents.

State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶9 When addressing a sufficiency of evidence argument, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
4 STATE v. NELSON Decision of the Court ¶13 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. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶9 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at the hearing, “[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. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 39 (1998) (state of mind may be inferred from behavior); (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, as the jury was properly instructed, “[i]ntent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence.” ¶ 39 (1998) (general rule is that state of mind may be inferred from behavior at time of offense).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
In doing so, we review the record de novo, considering 27 STATE V. LYNCH Opinion of the Court “the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.” ¶ 77, ( ¶ 60, ).
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶12 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
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
I. Sufficiency of Evidence ¶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
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
I. Sufficiency of Evidence ¶9 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
State v. Krentiras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Krentiras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶12 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
State v. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶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
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶8 When addressing a sufficiency of evidence argument, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶7 Further, when addressing a sufficiency of the evidence argument, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12, 3 STATE v. VARELA Decision of the Court (1998).
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
2 “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. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶10 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, “[w]e construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶3 “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, ¶ 15 , construing “the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolv[ing] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12