appellant making claim in District of Columbia

2025“An appellant making a claim of evidentiary insufficiency bears the heavy burden of showing that the prosecution offered no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Dorsey v. United States, 154 A.3d 106, 112 (D.C. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2025“An appellant making a claim of evidentiary insufficiency bears the heavy burden of showing that the prosecution offered no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Dorsey v. United States, 154 A.3d 106, 112 (D.C. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023“An appellant making a claim of evidentiary insufficiency bears the heavy burden of showing that the prosecution offered no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Schools v. United States, 84 A.3d 503, 508 (D.C. 2013)).

2017“An appellant making a claim of evidentiary insufficiency bears the heavy burden of showing that the prosecution offered no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schools v. United States, 84 A.3d 503, 508 (D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Olafisoye v. United States, 857 A.2d 1078, 1086 (D.C. 2004)).

2017“An appellant making a claim of evidentiary insufficiency bears the heavy burden of showing that the prosecution offered no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schools v. United States, 84 A.3d 503, 508 (D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Olafisoye v. United States, 857 A.2d 1078, 1086 (D.C. 2004)).

2013An appellant making a claim of evidentiary insufficiency ―bears the heavy burden of showing that the prosecution offered no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.‖ Olafisoye v. United States, 857 A.2d 1078, 1086 (D.C. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023“In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we make no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, and ‘[c]ircumstantial evidence is not intrinsically inferior to direct evidence.’” (Christopher) Smith v. United States, 809 A.2d 1216, 1222 (D.C. 2002) (alteration in original) (quoting Bernard v. United States, 575 A.2d 1191, 1193 (D.C. 1990)). 14 1.

2023“In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we make no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, and ‘[c]ircumstantial evidence is not intrinsically inferior to direct evidence.’” (Christopher) Smith v. United States, 809 A.2d 1216, 1222 (D.C. 2002) (alteration in original) (quoting Bernard v. United States, 575 A.2d 1191, 1193 (D.C. 1990)). 14 1.

2017To sustain a conviction for UPP, the evidence “must show that 1) the defendant had been convicted of a felony and 2) that he owned or kept a firearm, or that he had a firearm in his possession or under his control.” Hammond v. United States, 77 A.3d 964, 969 (D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2013In considering an evidentiary-insufficiency claim, we ―view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact.‖ Freeman v. United States, 912 A.2d 1213, 1218 (D.C. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). ―Expressed more fully, this means a reviewing court[,] faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences[,] must presume — even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record — that the trier of 9 fact resolved any such confli

2013In considering an evidentiary-insufficiency claim, we ―view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact.‖ Freeman v. United States, 912 A.2d 1213, 1218 (D.C. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). ―Expressed more fully, this means a reviewing court[,] faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences[,] must presume — even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record — that the trier of 9 fact resolved any such confli

2013In considering an evidentiary-insufficiency claim, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact.” Freeman v. United States, 912 A.2d 1213, 1218 (D.C.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2013In considering an evidentiary-insufficiency claim, we ―view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact.‖ Freeman v. United States, 912 A.2d 1213, 1218 (D.C. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). ―Expressed more fully, this means a reviewing court[,] faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences[,] must presume — even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record — that the trier of 9 fact resolved any such confli