12 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts 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. Latimoregreen2 sentences2024In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we consider "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979). 2024When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we determine whether "the evidence, including all reasonable and possible inferences, was sufficient to enable 6 any rational trier of fact to 'infer the existence of the essential elements of the crime charged.'" Commonwealth v. Rarick, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 349, 351 (2015), quoting Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). | 5 | 9 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2024In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we consider "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979). 2017We review a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Latimore , 378 Mass. 671 , 677 (1979), quoting from Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 319 (1979). | 1 | 2 |
Campatelli v. Chief Justice of Trial Courtgreen1 sentence2024"Our primary duty in interpreting a statute is 'to effectuate the intent of the Legislature in enacting it.'" Commonwealth v. Sousa, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 49 (2015), quoting Campatelli v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, 468 Mass. 455, 464 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sousagreen1 sentence2024"Our primary duty in interpreting a statute is 'to effectuate the intent of the Legislature in enacting it.'" Commonwealth v. Sousa, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 49 (2015), quoting Campatelli v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, 468 Mass. 455, 464 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rarickgreen1 sentence2024When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we determine whether "the evidence, including all reasonable and possible inferences, was sufficient to enable 6 any rational trier of fact to 'infer the existence of the essential elements of the crime charged.'" Commonwealth v. Rarick, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 349, 351 (2015), quoting Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Morangreen1 sentence2012As “an exception to that rule,” Commonwealth v. Moran, 453 Mass. 880, 884 (2009), McCarthy set the standard for sustaining an indictment against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge: “the grand jury must hear sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused, . . . and probable cause to arrest him” for the crime charged. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Torresgreen1 sentence1997Review of the order is governed by the sufficiency of the evidence standard set out in Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), see Commonwealth v. Doucette, 408 Mass. 454, 456 (1990); Commonwealth v. Torres, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 317, 323-325 (1987), in contrast to review of an order allowing a motion for a new trial under Mass.R.Crim.P. 25(b)(2), 378 Mass. 896 (1979), where the judge’s assessment of the weight of the evidence is irrelevant. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Doucettegreen1 sentence1997Review of the order is governed by the sufficiency of the evidence standard set out in Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), see Commonwealth v. Doucette, 408 Mass. 454, 456 (1990); Commonwealth v. Torres, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 317, 323-325 (1987), in contrast to review of an order allowing a motion for a new trial under Mass.R.Crim.P. 25(b)(2), 378 Mass. 896 (1979), where the judge’s assessment of the weight of the evidence is irrelevant. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cohengreen1 sentence1996We note that, although there may have been other inferences possible, under the sufficiency of the evidence standard, we need only consider whether the inference was “reasonable and possible.” Commonwealth v. Cohen, 412 Mass. 375, 380 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Casale
green
1 sentence2012In that case, convictions of murder on a joint venture theory were upheld against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge where each defendant was one of a group (defendants’ group) that had expressed hostility in person toward the victim’s group. 4 Id. at 168-170 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commonwealth v. McCarthy
green
1 sentence2012McCarthy, supra at 163 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.