green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.1 score
“this court's decision is not whether we believe that defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence is sufficient for the jury to so find.”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Graham
this court's decision is not whether we believe that defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence is sufficient for the jury to so find.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Guillen-Alegre
See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995) (explaining that a reviewing court’s task is to examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state to deter- mine whether a rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable inferences and reasonable credibility choices, could have found the essential element of the crime beyond a reason- able doubt”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Guillen-Alegre
See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995) (explaining that a reviewing court’s task is to examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state to deter- mine whether a rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable inferences and reasonable credibility choices, could have found the essential element of the crime beyond a reason- able doubt”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Carlton
See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995) (when reviewing the denial of an MJOA, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state” and “determine 360 State v. Carlton whether a rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable infer- ences and reasonable credibility choices, could have found the essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”); State v. Simmons, 321 Or App 478, 483 , 516 P3d 1203 (2022), rev den, 370 Or 740 (2023) (“[W]hether circum- stantial evidence is sufficient to support a given inference is a qu…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Carlton
See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995) (when reviewing the denial of an MJOA, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state” and “determine 360 State v. Carlton whether a rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable infer- ences and reasonable credibility choices, could have found the essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”); State v. Simmons, 321 Or App 478, 483 , 516 P3d 1203 (2022), rev den, 370 Or 740 (2023) (“[W]hether circum- stantial evidence is sufficient to support a given inference is a qu…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McNall
See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63-64 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995) (the jury is not compelled to accept a defendant’s alternative, less incriminating version of events).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Reyes, R.
Accord, Commonwealth v. Carter, 643 A.2d 61 , 67 n.2 (Pa. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cave
See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995) (stating the standard for reviewing a denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Longo
See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 65-68 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, *605 514 US 1005 (1995) (rejecting arguments under Article I, section 20, of Oregon Constitution, and both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution).
cited
Cited "see"
Barnett v. State
See Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 846, 861 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. State
See Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Hall v. State, 403 So.2d 1321 (Fla.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Butler v. State
(2×)
See Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 846, 861 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Irizarry v. State
See Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Williams, 110 So.2d at 658; Jackson v. State, 403 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Robinson
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Carter, 537 Pa. 233 , 643 A.2d 61, 77 (1994) (holding that the trial court's instruction to the jury not to consider prosecutor's statements as evidence cured any prejudice which may have been caused by the comments made by the prosecutor), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995). b.
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Sadvari
See Commonwealth v. Carter, 537 Pa. 233, 246 , 643 A.2d 61, 67 (1994), cert. denied, *600 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Rizzo, 634 A.2d at 395 .
cited
Cited "see"
Shively v. State
See, Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Neelley v. Nagle
See Neelley v. Alabama, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1316 , 131 L.Ed.2d 197 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benjamin Harold Brooks and Frederick James Treesh
Garrett, 90 F.3d at 214 (concluding that the problem is not ripe for appellate adjudication); see United States v. Jackson, 33 F.3d 866, 875 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, *496 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1316 , 131 L.Ed.2d 197 (1995) (same).' However, if the record is sufficiently developed to consider the claim adequately, we shall not forbid an appellant from raising the issue.
cited
Cited "see"
Gallegos v. State
See Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994), cert denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lelynn Allen Covert
See United States v. Sherrod, 33 F.3d 723, 724 (6th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mejia
Because we determine that the evidence in the record was legally sufficient to find defendant guilty of Counts 1 through 4, we affirm.5 1 ORS 164.325 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) A person commits the crime of arson in the first degree if: “(a) By starting a fire or causing an explosion, the person intentionally damages: “* * * * * “(B) Any property, whether the property of the person or the property of another person, and such act recklessly places another person in danger of physical injury or protected property of another in danger of damage[.]” 2 ORS 164.315 provides, in pert…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. King
State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339 , 768 P2d 391 (1989); see also State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morgan
“In ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339 , 768 P2d 391 (1989); see also State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. J. D. S.
Id.; accord Keller and Holdner, 232 Or App 341, 344 , 222 P3d 1111 (2009); see also State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 440 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995) (in criminal cases, the appellate court does not determine whether it believes that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence is sufficient for a jury to so find).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. JDS
Id.; accord Keller and Holdner, 232 Or.App. 341, 344 , 222 P.3d 1111 (2009); see also State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47, 63 , 880 P.2d 431 (1994), cert. den., 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995) (in criminal cases, the appellate court does not determine whether it believes that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence is sufficient for a jury to so find).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
in the Interest of R.B., J.B., S.B., T.B., A.B. and J.B., Children
See, e.g., Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 846, 861 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Robb v. State, 730 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); see also 43A George E.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Finley
(2×)
See also, Commonwealth v. Carter, 537 Pa. 233 , 643 A.2d 61, 68 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995). ¶ 4 In Appellee's case, the officer's technical defect ( i.e., lack of certification) was not qualification-based, as the officer had received the requisite training.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Geske v. State
See, e.g., Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Miller
(2×)
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Carter, 537 Pa. 233, 257 , 643 A.2d 61, 73 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1317 , 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
Peevy
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 94-1349.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 6, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.