Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Jamison.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Jamison Anchor | green | “when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the def…” | 7 |
| 2 | State v. Wilt | green | “(1) whether the misconduct was so gross and flagrant as to deny the accused a fair trial, (2) whether the remarks show ill will on the prosecutor's part, and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant is of such a direct and overwhelming nature that it can be said that the p…” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.