13 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Boisgreen1 sentence2024This Court has held that a criminal defendant takes on a heavy burden when bringing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge: 27 See, e.g., Boise, 62 N.E.3d at 531 (finding reversal not required considering the strength of the State’s evidence even after finding that the prosecutor made improper remarks by telling the jury that, on the “night of August 4th, 2007, a monster came in the night. | 1 | 1 |
State of West Virginia v. Frank Gene Thompsongreen1 sentence2021Va. 406 , 414, 813 S.E.2d 59, 67 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burdettegreen1 sentence2020Va. 312, 332, 63 S.E.2d 69, 81 (1950) (finding in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge that evidence of a vicious, brutal, and continued assault, even after victim was helpless, was sufficient for the jury to find malice and to sustain a first-degree murder conviction). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biasgreen1 sentence2020Va. 569, 575 , 195 S.E.2d 626, 629 (1973) (noting in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge that “[o]rdinarily blows inflicted by one person on another with bare fists do not demonstrate[] the malice requisite to sustain a conviction of second degree murder. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reedgreen1 sentence2019The windows in the building had been broken out, and the back door was kicked in.”); People v. Reynolds, 187 N.W.2d 524, 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971) (per curiam) (affirming the petitioner’s conviction on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge and observing that the jury had been instructed properly that a building could “lose its status as a dwelling house by reason of non-occupancy and disrepair”; that “the condition of this disrepair must be such as would communicate to an observer an apparent intent of the owner to abandon its function as a place in which people live”; and that the “undisclo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2019The windows in the building had been broken out, and the back door was kicked in.”); People v. Reynolds, 187 N.W.2d 524, 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971) (per curiam) (affirming the petitioner’s conviction on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge and observing that the jury had been instructed properly that a building could “lose its status as a dwelling house by reason of non-occupancy and disrepair”; that “the condition of this disrepair must be such as would communicate to an observer an apparent intent of the owner to abandon its function as a place in which people live”; and that the “undisclo | 1 | 1 |
State v. LaRockgreen2 sentences2007An appellant court must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution!.]” Syl. pt. 3, in part, State v. Guthrie, supra. See also, State v. LaRock, supra, 196 W.Va. at 304, 470 S.E.2d at 623 (In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the evidence must be viewed from “the prosecutor’s coign of vantage”). 2007An appellant court must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution!.]” Syl. pt. 3, in part, State v. Guthrie, supra. See also, State v. LaRock, supra, 196 W.Va. at 304, 470 S.E.2d at 623 (In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the evidence must be viewed from “the prosecutor’s coign of vantage”). | 1 | 1 |
Lockhart v. Nelsongreen2 sentences1995See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 , 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). [11] The evidence shows the victim's actions were irritating to the defendant well before the stabbing took place. 1995See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 , 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). [11] The evidence shows the victim's actions were irritating to the defendant well before the stabbing took place. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Guthrie
green
2 sentences2004As Mr. Toler ran to the neighbor’s house to call an ambulance and the police the appellant stood on his porch and yelled, “I told you I’d shoot you-ins.” In light of the facts of this case, we find that there was abundant evidence to sustain the appellant’s conviction under the sufficiency of the evidence test contained in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). *323 D. 2004As Mr. Toler ran to the neighbor’s house to call an ambulance and the police the appellant stood on his porch and yelled, “I told you I’d shoot you-ins.” In light of the facts of this case, we find that there was abundant evidence to sustain the appellant’s conviction under the sufficiency of the evidence test contained in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 , 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). *323 D. | 7 | 1996–2020 |
State v. Weisengoff
green
1 sentence2020However, we have held that a protracted and continued beating with bare hands by a stronger person upon a weaker person can evince the malice necessary for a conviction of murder.”); State v. Weisengoff, 85 W. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
First United Pentecostal Church v. Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2015Ed. 2d 974 (2006), the United States Supreme Court expressly held “that since respondent failed to renew its preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b), there was no basis for review of respondent’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge.”20 The decision in Unitherm was applied in First United Pentecostal Church v. Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Co., 189 F. App’x 852 (11th Cir. 2006). 19 The relevant text of federal Rule 50(b) provides as follows: If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the acti 2015The federal counterpart to Rule 50(b) also uses the term “may/’ and federal courts also have interpreted their rule as precluding appellate review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim if a party fails to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. 19 In Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 407 , 126 S.Ct. 980, 989 , 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006), the United States Supreme Court expressly held “that since respondent failed to .renew its. preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b); there was no basis for review of respondent’s sufficiency of the evidence | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The federal counterpart to Rule 50(b) also uses the term “may/’ and federal courts also have interpreted their rule as precluding appellate review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim if a party fails to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. 19 In Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 407 , 126 S.Ct. 980, 989 , 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006), the United States Supreme Court expressly held “that since respondent failed to .renew its. preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b); there was no basis for review of respondent’s sufficiency of the evidence 2015The federal counterpart to Rule 50(b) also uses the term “may/’ and federal courts also have interpreted their rule as precluding appellate review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim if a party fails to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. 19 In Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 407 , 126 S.Ct. 980, 989 , 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006), the United States Supreme Court expressly held “that since respondent failed to .renew its. preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b); there was no basis for review of respondent’s sufficiency of the evidence | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Frazier
green
2 sentences2002Cf. Syl. pt. 4, State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 602 , 252 S.E.2d 39 (1979) ("The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Federal and this State's Constitutions forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.”). 2002Cf. Syl. pt. 4, State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 602 , 252 S.E.2d 39 (1979) ("The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Federal and this State's Constitutions forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.”). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences1995To warrant interference with a verdict of guilt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the court must be convinced that the evidence was manifestly inadequate and that consequent injustice has been done." A year after Starkey was decided, the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), [2] articulated, at least linguistically, a different standard of review under the United States Constitution. [3] In a sufficiency of the evidence claim under Jackson , an appellate court, while reviewing the record in the light most favorable t 1995To warrant interference with a verdict of guilt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the court must be convinced that the evidence was manifestly inadequate and that consequent injustice has been done." A year after Starkey was decided, the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), [2] articulated, at least linguistically, a different standard of review under the United States Constitution. [3] In a sufficiency of the evidence claim under Jackson , an appellate court, while reviewing the record in the light most favorable t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.