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.
11 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 508 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 Williams v. Com..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Williams v. Com. Anchor | green | “an appellate court does not 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 108 |
| 2 | Sullivan v. Com. | green | “relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 102 |
| 3 | Williams v. Com. | green | “rather, the relevant question is whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 87 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Moseley | green | “does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence, as the fact finder . . . 'is entitled to consider all of the evidence, without distinction, in reaching its determination.” | 67 |
| 5 | Thomas v. Commonwealth | green | “with the highest degree of appellate deference.” | 55 |
| 6 | Bolden v. Com. | green | “an appellate court must consider all the evidence admitted at trial that is contained in the record.” | 23 |
| 7 | Bolden v. Com. | green | “is not limited to the evidence mentioned by a party in trial argument or by the trial court in its ruling.” | 19 |
| 8 | Tizon v. Commonwealth | green | “thus, a factfinder may 'draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts,” | 19 |
| 9 | Campbell v. Commonwealth | green | “if reasonable jurists could disagree about the probative force of the facts, we have no authority to substitute our views for those of the trial judge.” | 15 |
| 10 | George M. Epps, Sheriff of City of Petersburg, Virginia v. Commonwealth | green | “we are not bound by concessions of law by the parties.” | 10 |
| 11 | Thomas v. Commonwealth | green | “we review lower court factfinding with the highest degree of appellate deference.” | 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.